Midterms

Tuesday, February 5, 2019 1:42 PM

Judicial Review
any form of judicial scrutiny of a matter which arises when such action is brought into question before a
court

Purpose of judicial review.

- The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and
protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions.
○ It is part of the system of checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and
forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications.

Doctrine of res judicata

○ Decisions and orders of administrative agencies have upon their finality, the force and effect
of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata
○ Forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent authority acting within
their exclusive jurisdiction
○ Requisites:
i. final judgment or order;
ii. jurisdiction of the court (or agency) over the subject matter and the parties; and
iii. identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of cause of action.

Limitations on judicial review

1. Judicial review is extremely limited in regard to findings of fact and to expert judgments of an
administrative agency acting within its statutory authority
2. The power of judicial review is not the power to determine whether the action of an
administrative agency is right, correct, wise, proper, advisable, expedient, or best fitted to the
situation involved
3. Court may require an administrative agency to comply with the law and its rules and regulations
particularly those prescribing notice and hearing
4. No relief is available for mere error or honest error, by an administrative agency, particularly in a
collateral proceeding
5. The courts will not inquire into motives which impel action by the administrative agency
6. Determination of an administrative agency as to the operation, implementation and application of
law is accorded great weight

Appeal
See Rule 43

Exhaustion relate to Primary Jusrisdiction Doctrine

If asked to distinguish/relate:
The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all
the means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are
authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first
giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.
While the doctrine of primary jurisdiction states that courts cannot or will not determine a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the
resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the

Midterm Reviewer Page 1

sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. (ADDITION HILLS
MANDALUYONG CIVIC vs Megaworld

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon an administrative body to act upon a matter, no
resort to the courts may be made before such administrative body shall have acted upon the matter

- doctrine of primary jurisdiction is not concerned with judicial review but determines in some
circumstances whether initial action should be taken by a court or by an administrative agency

Reasons for the Doctrine

The usual result when a court holds that an administrative agency has primary jurisdiction is the
dismissal of the proceeding in the court. Two reasons have been thus given for the rule:
a. to take full advantage of administrative expertness;

a. to attain uniformity of application of regulatory laws which can be secured only if

determination of the issue is left to the administrative body

Application
○ Prior resort to an agency should be limited to questions of fact and questions requiring the
skills of administrative specialists.
○ Questions of law may appropriately be determined in the first instance by court

Nota Bene
concurrent jurisdiction conferred. — The doctrine is clearly applicable whenever courts and
administrative agencies have concurrent jurisdiction. When an action is filed on one court, the
other loses jurisdiction.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies

Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be
made until all such remedies have been availed of and Exhausted

- 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.

- 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
○ Failure to invoke it at the proper time operates as a waiver of the objection as a ground for a
motion to dismiss and the court may then proceed with the case and try it as if the doctrine
had been observed
○ "Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect
the jurisdiction of the court. xxx 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."
(Rosario vs CA)

Exceptions (not that important)

(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and

Midterm Reviewer Page 2

 (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and
oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the
courts of justice;
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) where the application of the doctrines may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controversial acts violate due process;
(i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;
(j) where strong public interest is involved; and
(l) in quo warranto proceedings (Ejera vs Vergara)

Simplified
1) where the issue raised is one purely of law;
2) where public interest is involved; and
3) in case of urgency (Central Bank vs Cloribel)

Relation between exhaustion doctrine and due process

Exhaustion doctrine applies when the ruling court or tribunal is not given the opportunity to re-
examine its findings and conclusions. Due process applies when a tribunal rules against a party
without giving him the opportunity to be heard. The commonality they share is in the same
"opportunity" that underlies both

EXTRA: Ripeness for judicial review

principle of ripeness is that the judicial machinery should be conserved for problems which are
real and present or imminent, and should not be squandered on problems which are future,
imaginary or remote

Cardinal primary req. of due process

The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain latitude as
long as the element of fairness is not ignored; even in the absence of previous notice, there is no denial
of due process as long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard.

The landmark case of Ang Tibay v Court of Industrial Relations, enumerated the following “cardinal
primary requirements” of procedural due process in administrative proceedings:

1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in
support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such reasonable evidence as a
reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
7. The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the
decision rendered.

Cert. of non-forum shopping

certification under oath that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or

Midterm Reviewer Page 3

issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he
should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5)
days therefrom. (Rule 42, Sec 2)

Substantial evidence req. of quantum of evidence

Substantial evidence: such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion which is the quantum of proof necessary to prove a change in an administrative case

quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicial

bodies DEVIATES from the usual norm demanded in ordinary litigations undergoing a trial
- each party in an administrative case must prove his affirmative allegations with substantial
evidence — the complaint has to prove the affirmative allegations in his complaint, and the
respondent has to prove the affirmative allegations in his affirmative defenses and counterclaim.

In our jurisdiction, the rule is that, the findings of fact of administrative agencies must be respected, so
long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or preponderant

NB:
In administrative cases, the courts cannot weigh once more the evidence submitted before the
administrative body and make their own findings of fact and substitute the same

All administrative determinations require only substantial proof and not clear and convincing
evidence. The second is more than mere preponderance of evidence

EXTRA: When Substantial Rule not applicable

The substantial evidence rule has been held inapplicable in the following cases:
i. Where the statute provides for a trial de novo in which the rule shall not be invoked;
ii. Where the statute has specified a standard of proof required for administrative
determination, that is, the agency is required to make a finding "by the
preponderance of evidence";
iii. Where the suit is not for review of the administrative order and is independent of the
proceedings in which the administrative ruling under attack was rendered;
iv. Where constitutional or jurisdictional facts are involved; and
v. Where property rights rather than privileges are involved

MORE EXTRA: State Immunity vs Official Immunity

The doctrine of sovereign immunity principally rests upon the tenuous ground that "the king
could do no wrong." It serves to protect the impersonal body politic or government itself
from tort liability. On the other hand, official immunity serves as a protective aegis for public
officials from tort liability for damages arising from discretionary acts or functions in the
performance of their official duties

 Public officials are not exempt, in their personal capacity, from liability arising from
acts committed in bad faith.

Judicial power
Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving

Midterm Reviewer Page 4

 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Rule-making power of Courts

Judicial: Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged

Rule-making power / Quasi-Legislative

Administrative: It is the authority delegated by the law-making body to the administrative body to adopt
rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a law and implement legislative policy.

Non-Delegation of legislative power

Delegation to the Congress. Fundamentally, legislative power is an attribute of sovereignty, in that
the Constitution itself, the fundamental law of the State, is a legislation of the sovereign people.

Exceptions (PETALS)
a. Delegation to the People
b. Emergency powers of President
c. Tariff powers of the President
d. Delegation to Administrative bodies
e. Delegation to Local Government units
f. Supreme court

Tests of Delegation (applies to the power to promulgate administrative regulations )

a. COMPLETENESS test. This means that the law must be complete in all its terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislature so that when it reaches the delegate, it will have
nothing to do but to enforce it.
b. SUFFICIENT STANDARD test. The law must offer a sufficient standard to specify the limits of
the delegate’s authority, announce the legislative policy and specify the conditions under
which it is to be implemented.

Requisites for validity of Administrative Rules

1. Issued under authority of law
2. Within the scope and purview of the law
3. Reasonable
4. Publication in the OG or in a newspaper of general circulation

Administrative Rules with Penal Sanctions (additional requisites)

1. law itself must declare as punishable the violation of the administrative rule or regulation
2. law should define or fix the penalty for the violation of the administrative rule or regulation

Implementing Rules and Regulations vs Opinions

Implementing rules and regulations are the means and methods on how the Executive will execute the
law after the Legislature has enacted the law. (Abakada Guro Partylist vs Purisima)

To implement the law, the Executive must necessarily adopt implementing rules to guide executive
officials how to implement the law, as well as to guide the public how to comply with the law. These
guidelines, known as implementing rules and regulations, can only emanate from the Executive because
the Executive is vested with the power to implement the law. (Abakada Guro Partylist vs Purisima)

Midterm Reviewer Page 5

 When asked to differentiate IRR from Opinion
Implementing rules and regulations are the means and methods on how the Executive will
execute the law after the Legislature has enacted the law. When an administrative agency
promulgates rules and regulations, it makes a new law with the force and effect of a valid law. On
the other hand, when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of a policy, it merely interprets a
pre-existing law. The administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally
determine what the law means

Administrative rule of regulation Administrative Interpretation

When an administrative agency promulgates rules and when it renders an opinion or gives a
regulations, it makes a new law with the force and effect of a statement of a policy, it merely
valid law interprets a pre-existing law.

the administrative interpretation is

at best advisory for it is the courts
that finally determine what the law
means

Legislative rules and regulations of an administrative body or it is a principle widely accepted that
officer which are valid have the force and effect of law, and are the contemporaneous construction
just as binding upon all the parties, as if they had been written in placed upon the statute by the
the original law itself. executive officers whose duty is to
enforce, it is entitled to great weight
and consideration by the courts.
This is especially true if the
administrative interpretation has
been observed for a long time
without objection
(Contemporaneous Construction)
(a) They are valid if they have been duly promulgated or adopted
in pursuance of properly delegated statutory or constitutional
authority of the agency.
(b) They receive statutory force upon going into effect.

Requirement of notice and hearing or publication

As a general rule, prior notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of rules and regulations
promulgated to govern future conduct.

- When rules and rates do not apply exclusively to a particular party, no need for notice or
hearing
- Where regulations merely interpretative and those internal in nature, interpretative
regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the
administrative agency and not the public, need not be published

Exceptions:
1. Where such rules and/or rates apply exclusively to a particular party and are predicated
upon a finding of fact which fact is denied by said party, the agency in making such
finding of fact, performs a function partaking of a quasi-judicial character

2. Where requirements prescribed by law -- notices of proposed rules must be given when

Midterm Reviewer Page 6

 2. Where requirements prescribed by law -- notices of proposed rules must be given when
required by law

3. Where rules have the force and effect of law -- when the issuances are of "general
applicability," publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in
the Philippines is necessary
Publication is required as a condition precedent to the effectivity of a law
to inform the public of the contents of the law or rules and regulations
before their rights and interests are affected by the same

Executive Orders of the President and Administrative Rules and

Regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement
existing laws pursuant to a valid delegation

Quasi judicial
• Quasi-judicial power - This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the
legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law
itself in enforcing and administering the same law.

• Quasi-judicial body – an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature,
which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule making power

Grant of particular power must be found in the law itself

Where there is nothing in the law that would suggest that a particular power has been granted,
such as the power to decide

Upholding the decisions

the general policy of the courts to sustain the decision of administrative authorities not only on
the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed knowledgeability and
even expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce

Separation of powers
Fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express
provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has
exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere.

- Is it absolute?
○ No. It is not absolute. There is delegation. To promulgate rules and regulations
within the parameters of the law

Determine Quasi-Judicial from Judicial

that it is the nature of the act to be performed, rather than of the office, board, or body which
performs it, that determines whether or not it is the discharge of a judicial or quasi-judicial
function contractual disputes, the same cannot be exercised. Except for Constitutional officials

Presumption of regularity
• The legal presumption is that official duty has been duly performed;
• when an act has been completed, it is to be supposed that the act was done in the manner
prescribed and by an officer authorized by law to do it

REMEMBER: When an act is official, a presumption of regularity exists because of the

assumption that the law tells the official what his duties are and that he discharged these
duties accordingly. But not all acts of public officers are official acts, and the presumption

Midterm Reviewer Page 7

 duties accordingly. But not all acts of public officers are official acts, and the presumption
does not apply when an officials acts are not within the duties specified by law
(Only official acts prescribed by the law and acts within the purview of the law are within the
presumption. Kapag lagpas, hindi na.)

How to rebut:
The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is
overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary

Gov't investigation
Investigation vs Hearing
"Investigation" by government officials,
which may be held in private are informal
proceedings to obtain information to
govern future actions, have no parties, and
are not proceedings in which action is
taken against anyone.
In "hearings," there are parties and issues of law and of
fact to be tried and at the conclusion of the hearing,
action is taken which may affect the rights of the parties,
and parties are entitled to be present in person and by
counsel, participate in the hearing, and entitled to be
furnished a record of the proceedings.

Investigatory or inquisitorial powers include the power of an administrative body to inspect the records
and premises, and investigate the activities of persons or entities coming under its jurisdiction,' or to
secure, or to require the disclosure of information by means of accounts, records, reports, statements,
testimony of witnesses, production of documents, or otherwise

NB:
• An administrative agency or official may initiate an investigation on a complaint or on its own
motion

• Investigations are usually, and may properly be held in private

• While hearings may be held, as a general rule, a hearing is not a necessary part of an investigation
by an administrative agency or official.

• the right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations because such
inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary
measure against erring public officers and employees

• a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel. a respondent has the
option of engaging the services of counsel or not

Court contemporary construction vis a vis rule making power

constructions placed upon statutes at the time of, or after, their enactment by the executive,
legislature, or judicial authorities, as well as those who, because of their involvement in the
process of legislation, are knowledgeable of the intent and purpose of the law, such as draftsmen
and bill sponsors.

As Rule-making: it is a principle widely accepted that the contemporaneous construction placed

upon the statute by the executive officers whose duty is to enforce, it is entitled to great weight
and consideration by the courts. This is especially true if the administrative interpretation has
been observed for a long time without objection

What is executive construction (Contemporaneous din yan)

Midterm Reviewer Page 8
What is executive construction (Contemporaneous din yan)
While executive construction is not necessarily binding upon courts, it is entitled to great weight and
consideration. Reason for this is that such construction comes from the particular branch of government
called upon to implement the particular law involved (Ramos vs Court of Industrial Relations)

Kinds of Executive Construction, generally

What is commonly known as contemporaneous construction is the construction placed upon the
statute by an executive or administrative officer called upon to execute or administer such
statute.

Accordingly, executive and the administrative officers are generally the very first officials to
interpret the law, preparatory to its enforcement.

Three type of executive interpretations:

1) construction by an executive or administrative officer directly called to implement the
law, expressed or implied, expressed such as circular, directive, or regulation;
2) by the Secretary of Justice in his capacity as the chief legal adviser of the government, in
the form of opinions issued upon the request of the executive
3) interpretation handed down in an adversary proceeding in the form of a ruling by an
executive officer exercising quasi-judicial power

Weight accorded to contemporaneous construction

Generally speaking, where there is doubt as to the proper interpretation of a statute, the uniform
construction placed upon it by the executive or administrative officer charged with its
enforcement will be adopted, if necessary to resolve the doubt.

In the absence of error or abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly
conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of the legislative enactment creating or charging a
governmental agency, the action of the agency would not be disturbed by the courts.

Power of Control of the President

Power of control over the executive branch of government extends over all executive officers fand has
been to mean "the power of [the President] to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that
of the latter."

Doctrine of Political Agency

department secretaries are alter egos or assistants of the President and their acts are presumed to be
those of the latter unless disapproved or reprobated by him

Power of control (limitations)

1. the abolition or creation of an executive office;
2. the suspension or removal of career executive officials or employees without due process of law;
3. the setting aside, modification, or supplanting of decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, including the
office of the President, on contested cases to have become final pursuant to law or to rules and
regulations promulgated to implement the law

EXTRA:
Explain power to adjudicate and investigate
Investigate is the power of an administrative body to
inspect the records and premises, and investigate the
activities of persons or entities coming under its
Adjudicate means to settle in the
exercise of judicial authority and to try
and resolve the matters of a case on its

Midterm Reviewer Page 9

 activities of persons or entities coming under its and resolve the matters of a case on its
jurisdiction merits

Is the govt bound by the wrong acts of officials?

The Government is never estopped by mistake or error on the part of its agents

Case Doctrines
Pesigan vs. Angeles Doctrine:
Laws become effective only 15 days after their publication in the Official Gazette under the Civil Code
and the Administrative Code

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc vs. CA Doctrine:

The Supreme Court through its rule-making power can create a circular that has the force and effect of
law.

Maceda vs Macaraig Doctrine:

For delegation to be constitutionally valid, the law must be complete in itself and must set forth
sufficient standards

People vs Maceren Doctrine:

Administrative rules and regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that
it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes

Smart Communications, Inc. vs. NTC Doctrine:

Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not determine a controversy involving
a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal

Central Bank of the Philippines vs Cloribel Doctrine: (exhaustion of administrative remedies)

A petition for certiorari will NOT be entertained UNLESS the respondent has had, through a motion for
reconsideration, a chance to correct the error imputed to him

Peralta vs CSC Doctrine:

When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it
merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative interpretation of the law is at best advisory,
for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means

WMWU vs BLR Doctrine:

Administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they
are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law and are entitled to great respect

Carino vs CHR Doctrine:

The power to investigate does not carry with it the power to adjudicate

Cojuangco vs PCGG Doctrine:

Primary jurisdiction means that courts cannot and will not determine a controversy involving a question
which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal

Lupancgo vs CA Doctrine:
Administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and
regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the
end view

PNB vs Florendo Doctrine:

Midterm Reviewer Page 10

PNB vs Florendo Doctrine:
The special rules of procedures applicable under the present laws to such cases shall continue to be
applied, unless amended by law or by rules of court promulgated by the Supreme Court

Tajonera vs Lamaroza Doctrine:

While a day in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, it is otherwise in administrative
proceedings since they are based on different principles.

Secretary of Justice vs Lantion Doctrine:

Investigatory or inquisitorial powers include the power of an administrative body to inspect the records
and premises, and investigate the activities of persons or entities coming under its jurisdiction

Republic vs Neri Doctrine:

established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies have
upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment

Felizardo vs. CA Doctrine:

the writ of certiorari is available only where the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions
has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion

Rosario vs. Court of Appeals Doctrine:

Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction
of the court.

Ejera vs Vergara Doctrine:

Exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the principle that the administrative agency, if afforded a
complete chance to pass upon the matter again, will decide the same correctly

GSIS vs COA Doctrine:

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction would ordinarily preclude the court from resolving a matter, which calls
for a ruling to be first made by the Board

Republic vs Lacap Doctrine:

Before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him
by administrative processes.

Vigilar vs Aquino Doctrine: (Question of law, not question of fact)

When issue does not require technical knowledge and experience, exhaustion of Administrative
remedies does not apply.

First Cases
Mecano vs. Commission on Audit Doctrine:
It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored.

Iron and Steel Authority vs. CA Doctrine:

When the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties and functions as well
as the assets and liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are re-assumed by, the Republic.

US vs Dorr Doctrine:
Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society. Administration, in modern times, and
especially in more or less free countries, is the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of
government are for the time being.

Fernandez vs Sto. Tomas Doctrine:

Midterm Reviewer Page 11

Fernandez vs Sto. Tomas Doctrine:
Public office is frequently used to refer to the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by
which, for a given period either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an
individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government, to be exercised by
that individual for the benefit of the public

Republic v. CA (1991) Doctrine:

An administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law and those that are
necessarily implied in the exercise thereof

Guerzon Doctrine:
It is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it
by law and those that are necessarily implied in the exercise thereof.

Republic vs Philippine Bus Lines Inc. Doctrine:

The Government is never estopped by mistake or error on the part of its agents

Vda de Jacob vs PUA Doctrine

The power of control therein contemplated means to alter, modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the
former for that of the latter

Tatad vs Garcia Doctrine:

The right to operate a public utility may exist independently and separately from the ownership of the
facilities thereof.

Carpio vs Executive Secretary Doctrine:

The President’s power of control is directly exercised by him over the members of the Cabinet who, in
turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their respective jurisdictions in
the executive department

Midterm Reviewer Page 12

Midterm Reviewer Page 13