UNEDITED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER

General Considerations

A. Doctrines
Separation of Powers

Under this doctrine, all rules of conduct are supposed to be laid down directly by the legislature,
subject to the direct enforcement of the executive department and the application or interpretation
directly by the judiciary.

Non-Delegation of Powers (Delegatus Non Potest Delegari)

To make sure there is no disturbance with the doctrine of separation of powers. As a rule, legislative
delegation is prohibited

-however, there are exemptions:

-Subordinate legislation as the exception due to the complexities of modern governments.

subordinate legislation, and the Court has extended its seal of approval to delegation of greater
powers by the legislature. (PANTRANCO v. PSC [1940])

B. Permissible Delegation to Administrative Agencies

for delegation to be valid, there should still be something in legislative power that is not delegated
totally to the delegate.

congress shouldnt be abdication its legislative power which meansin delegation of legislative
power, it cab only delegate a part of that power and not the entire or totality of the legislative power.

only the how to implement the law is delegated and the discretion as to what the law is, remains with
the Congress.

TESTS TO MAKE SURE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF THE LAW IS NOT DELEGATED

Completeness Test the law must 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.
Sufficient Standard Test there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out
the
boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate.

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.
The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative if the legislative. This prerogative cannot be
abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate. (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. POEA
[1988])

C. Nature and Concept of Administrative Law

Administrative law branch of modern law under which the executive department of the
government, acting in a quasi-legistlative or quasi-judicial capacity interferes with the
conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community.
 Primary function is to enforce the law which it can actually perform even without exercising
quasi-leigislative and quasi-judicial

Two major powers: quasi-leigislative and quasi-judicial (can only be invoked of exercise for
purposes of enhancing its enforcement prerogative, only withing the confines of the
constitutional or statutory grant.

Executive is given quasi-legislative and/or quasi-judicial powers. Cannot be legislative nor

judicial because Administrative body is neither Legislative nor Judicial body.
Interferes with conduct of individuals administrative agency regulates conduct, and regulation is
one essence of governance. Because regulation affects private rights, admin law also provides for
remedies for the violation of rights.
For the promotion of public convenience or general welfare also calls for subordination of private
interest in favor of public. It can therefore be observed in the study of administrative law that the
delegation of power by the Legislature is usually delegation of police power.

ADMIN CODE IS A GENERAL LAW

Therefore, Special Laws shall prevail over provisions of the Administrative Code.
Thus, the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) shall have the power to lease a
government property of CAA despite a provision in the Admin Code that it should be entered into by
the President of the Republic, because a special law (R.A. 776) creating CAA gives the Administrator
that power. (Leveriza v. IAC, [1988])

D. Origin and Development

It is a recent development being a consequence of the ever-increasing complexiiets of a society

and the proliferation of problems of government that cannot readily or effectively be addressed
by the traditional public agencies aor solved by the other disciplines of public law

As the areas of governmental concern expanded and grew complicated (with new inventions
and systems), so are the TIME and EXPERTISE needed to address them. Legislative and
Judiciary no longer have the time and expertise

Origin of Administrative Law is in legislation. Justification is expediency. Obvious solution is

delegation of powers.

By delegation, legislature is able to relieve itself of the responsibility to legislate dierectly on

relatively minor matters and of attending as well to the adjudication of essentially factual questions
that more properly pertain to the executive authority.
Legislature can concentrate on matters of national or greater significance.

E. Reasons for Growth of Administrative Agencies

As a result of the growing complexity of the modern society, it has become necessary to
create more and more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified
activities. Specialized in the particular fields assigned to them, thay can deal with the
problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the
legislature or the courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of
quasilegislative and quasi-judicial powers in what is now not unreasonably called the fourth
department of the government. (Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal [1989])
 F. Status of Administrative Law Today

Still in a state of flux, with many of its rules still to achieve the permanence of the more
settled principles in allied disciplines

Boundaries are yet undefined. Still undergoing a process of experimentation.

Proceeds on a trial-and-error basis as it seeks to discover the most acceptable ways by which
it may ensure the proper enforcement of law with a minimum of interference with individual
rights.

G. Sources of Administrative Law

H. Constitution
Statues creating the administrative body
Administrative Code of 1987
Administrative Court of 1917 (see Mecano case)
Jurisprudence
Rules and regulations of administrative agency, and
Decisions or orders of administrative agency exercising QJ power

OLD ADMIN CODE, NOT SPECIFICALLY REPEALED BY THE 1987 ADMIN CODE
Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does not cover nor attempt to cover the
entire subject matter of the old Code. There are several matters treated in the old Code which are not
found in the new Code the new statute may merely be cumulative or a continuation of the old one.
Besides, repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. (Mecano v. COA [1992])

I. Meaning of Administration

Administration in two senses:

Institution- aggregate of individuals in whose hands the reins of government are for the time
being; persons who actually run the government

Function- actual running of the government by the executive authorities through the
enforcement of laws and the implementation of policies; any activity outside legislation and
rendering of judicial decisions.

Administration as an activity:

Internal Administration considers the legal aspects of public administration as a going concern.
(personal matters=law of public officers)
External Administration refers to the legal relations between the administrative authorities and
private interests or the public. (administrative law proper)

J. Administrative Law vs Public Administration

Administrative Law- the legal framework within which public administration is carried out.

Public administration- implementation of government policies.

Part II.

A. Administrative Agencies
 1. Definition

-body endowed with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers for the purpose of enabling
it to carry out laws entrusted to it for enforcement or execution.

2. Nature

-arm of the legislature insofar as it is authorized to promulgate rules that have the force of
law by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power.
-also considered as court as it performs functions of a particular judicial character
-but still essentially considered as executive agencies and not part of judiciary (united
residents of domican hills vs commission on the settlement of land problems)

3. Creation, Reorganization and Abolition

Creation:
a. by Constitution

Under Art IX
Civil Service Commission
COMELEC
COA

-can only be altered or abolished by constitutional amendment

b. by Statute

PRC
NLRC
SEC

-can be amended or charter can be repealed by legislature

The power to create a new office, meaning not existing office, is not anymore a power of the
President under control power but it may be justified as long as it is: 1. An Ad Hoc office2. It
pertains to the so-called faithful execution clause. (BIRAOGO vs THE PHIL TRUTH COMMISSION)

Reorganization

MABALOT vs DOTC

President has the continuing authority to reorganize under the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Even if such authority is a pro-forma provision in every GAA, it is still Congress saying and
recognizing that the President has such power.

Reorganization may include the abolition of an office or it may not. An example of reorganization not
involving an abolition of office is the changing/reducing of staffing pattern from 50 employees down
to 30, with the number of offices remaining constant at 5. In other words, instead of having 10
employees per office, there would now only be 6 in each office. That would still be a valid
reorganization. In the process, you are reorganizing your office because there are functions in the
office that must exist and must be discharged but you need to put these functions of the 2 offices for
example that will have to be abolished to the existing offices. So in a way you are reorganizing. So
reorganizing may include but does not necessarily include but may include abolition of office.

Reorganization (or abolition) must be: (De La Llana vs Alba )

a)By LEGITIMATE BODY/OFFICER AND
b) Done IN GOOD FAITH
How to determine good faith:
Economy
Efficiency

BANDA vs ERMITA
- President ahs the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in the executive department in line
with his power of control over executive offices and his continuing authority to reorganize and
redefine functions of the Office of the President (granted under Admin Code of 1987)

Other legal bases of the Presidents power to reorganize: (BAGAOISAN vs NATIONAL TOBACCO
AUTHORITY)

A. Under RA 7645
a) . Sec. 48. Scaling Down and Phase Out of Activities of Agencies Within the Executive Branch.
The heads of departments, bureaus and offices and agencies are hereby directed to identify
their respective activities which are no longer essential in the delivery of public services and
which may be scaled down, phased out or abolished, subject to civil service rules and
regulations. x x x. Actual scaling down, phasing out or abolition of the activities shall be
effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for the purpose by the Office of the President.

b) Sec. 62. Unauthorized organizational changes. Unless otherwise created by law or directed by
the President of the Philippines, no organizational unit or changes in key positions in any
department or agency shall be authorized in their respective organization structures and be
funded from appropriations by this Act.

B. Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987
a) Sec. 20. Residual Powers. Unless Congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise
such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws
and which are not specifically enumerated above or which are not delegated by the
President in accordance with law.

b) Section 31. The President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve
simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the
administrative structure of the Office of the President.

Abolition

WHEN IS THERE ABOLITION?

P.D. 1341 did not abolish, but only changed, the former Philippine College of Commerce into what is
now the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. What took place was a change in academic status
of the educational institution, not in its corporate life.
 When the purpose is to abolish a department or an office or an organization and to replace it with
another one, the lawmaking authority says so.
[Crisostomo v. CA]

In National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration v. Civil Service Commission
(1993), the SC said: [I]f the newly created office has substantially new, different or additional
functions, duties or powers, so that it may be said in fact to create an office different from the one
abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it will be considered as an
abolition of one office and the creation of a new or different one. The same is true if one office is
abolished and its duties, for reasons of economy are given to an existing officer or office.

-Valid Abolition of office

Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng ERB v. Barin (2007

the overlap in the functions of the ERB and of the ERC does not mean that there is no valid abolition
of the ERB. The ERC has new and expanded functions which are intended to meet the specific
needs of a deregulated power industry.

BAD FAITH
Larin v. Executive Secretary:
For Political Reasons and purposely to defeat security of tenure
Involves a mere change of nomenclature of positions, or where the agency has created additional
office performing the same functions as the one already abolished
Claim of economy is belied by the existence of ample funds
NOT OBSERVING SECS. 2 & 3 OF R.A. 6656 (Civil Service Law)
NOTE: if after reorganization, a new position/office is created, the one to be considered and
preferred in filling-up the newly created position is the officer removed as a result of reorganization.
(Sec. 4, R.A. 6656) next-in-rank rule, therefore is not applicable in filling up newly created
positions after a reorganization.

SEC. 2, CIVIL SERVICE LAW

Sec. 2. (Evidence of Bad Faith):
(a) Where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the
department or agency concerned;
(b) Where an officer is abolished and other performing substantially the same functions is created;
(c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment,
performance and merit;
(d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the
reclassified offices perform substantially the same function as the original officers;
(e) Where the removal violates the order of separation provided is Section 3 hereof.

SEC. 3, CIVIL SERVICE LAW

Sec. 3. In the separation of personnel pursuant to reorganization, the following order of removal shall
be followed:
(a) Casual employees with less than five (5) years of government service;
(b) Casual employees with five (5) years or more of government service;
(c) Employees holding temporary appointments; and
(d) Employees holding permanent appointments: Provided, That those in the same category as
enumerated above, who are least qualified in terms of performance and merit shall be laid first,
length of service notwithstanding.
 BASIC ISSUE IN REORGANIZATION AND ABOLITION OF OFFICES
May a public officer validly claim violation of security of tenure if an office is abolished as a result of
reorganization? (KERB vs BARIN)
It depends on the validly of abolition
If valid (that is, with authority and done in good faith), no violation of security of tenure because
theres no tenure to speak of in the first place. Tenure presupposes existence of an office, and where
there is no more office, then theres no tenure.
In invalid (that is, without authority or with authority but done in bad faith), there is violation.

duly executed acts can have valid effects even beyond the life span of said governmental
agency. [Cebu United Enterprises v. Gallofin]

4. ADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

-Advantage of expertise derived from special traning and experience

-adaptability to change and ease in reacting to new and even emergency situations because
of its rule-making authority and adjudicatory prerogatives
-can initiate action and not simply wait for their jurisdiction to be invoked

5. RELATION TO REGULAR DEPARTMENTS

As to Legislative Department
-acts as the agent of the law-making body; bound to obey and implement the legislative will.
-

As to Executive
-pertains to the executive department; under the constitutional control of the President
-cannot claim independence from the executive department

As to Judiciary
-Courts can review or even reverse the factual findings of administrative offices or questions
of law
-As a matter of policy, courts only review administrative adjudication as a last resort

Montes vs Civil Service Board of Appeals

-Review of presidential act does not mean the executive is subordinate to the courts, only
that the law is above the Chief Executive and courts only seek to interpret or apply the law

Medalla vs Sayo
Courts of justice cannot be deprived of the inherent power to decide all questions of law,
particularly if they have been initially resolved by administrative bodies only.

B. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION
 6. Administrative Organization under Executive Order 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)

Definition of Terms

Sec 2.

IMPORTANT TERMS
a) DEPARTMENT executive department created by law;
b) BUREAU principal subdivision of a Department [Sec. 2 (8)];
c) OFFICE functional office of a Bureau including regional office; position held with functions
defined by law [Sec.2 (9)];
d) INSTRUMENTALITY agency of the National Government not integrated with the
Departmental framework vested with special functions, with corporate powers, special
funds, enjoying operational autonomy, including regulatory agencies, chartered institutions
and GOCCs. (Sec. 2)
e) CHARTERED INSTITUTIONS under a special charter, with specific constitutional
objective.
f) Government-owned or controlled corporation- refers to any agency organized as a
stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs
whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government
directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the
case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) per cent of its capital
stock.

ATTACHMENT
(3) Attachment (a) The refers to the lateral relationship between the department or its equivalent
and the attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program coordination. The
coordination may be accomplished by having the department represented in the governing board of
the attached agency or corporation, either as chairman or as a member, with or without voting rights,
if this is permitted by the charter, having the attached corporation or agency comply with a system of
periodic reporting which shall reflect the progress of programs and projects: and having the
department or its equivalent provide general policies through its representative in the board, which
shall serve as the framework for the internal policies of the attached corporation or agency;

BEJA V. COURT OF APPEALS

Issue:
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) was attached to Department of Transportation and
Communication (DOTC). Over personnel matters, does DOTC Secretary have jurisdiction over PPA?
Ruling: As to management of personnel an attached agency is generally free from
departmental control and interference. (Necessarily so because interfering with personnel matter
is not necessary in achieving policy and program coordination which is the essence of the
relationship of attachment.) [See: Sec. 38, Ch. 7, Book IV

Distribution of Powers of Government

Sec 1-29 Book II Admin Code of 1987

-Basic Principles ( Republican, democratic State, civilian authority etc)

 -Legislative Power ( Congress, Powers, CoA,HRET/PET, Legislative investigation,
referendum,initiative, amendments ;etc)
-Executive Power ( Pres/VP, vacancies, inhibitions)
-Judicial Power (Composition, Powers, Jurisdiction, JBC, etc)
-Constitutional Commission ( COA, COMELEC, CSC, inhibitions, promulgate rules, decisions
etc)
-Other Constitutional Bodies (CHR, Ombudsman, Cental Monetary Authority, National Police
Commission)

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Sec. 1. Power of Control.- The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

DEPARTMENT, BUREAUS AND OFFICES

President has control over DEPARTMENTS, BUREAUS, OFFICES. Presidents control power is
absolute and may not be limited, much less withdrawn, by the Legislature. (De Leon v. Carpio)

Over Secretaries of Different Departments

Secretaries of departments, of course, exercise certain powers under the law but the law cannot impair or
in any way affect the constitutional power of control and direction of the President. As a matter of
executive policy, they may be granted departmental autonomy as to certain matters but this is by
mere concession of the executive, in the absence of valid legislation in the particular field. If the
President, then, is the authority in the Executive Department, he assumes the corresponding
responsibility ((Villena vs Secretary of Interior, 1939)

Other Bodies as intended by the Constitution

As for all others that may be created by law, Congress has control, unless the constitution or
law provides otherwise. Thus , in Carpio v. Executive Secretary, it was intended by Constitution that
the National Police Commission, although created by law, was to be under the Presidents control and
that NPC was not intended to be independent.

Power of Control includes the power to remove

The power of control of the President may extend to the power to investigate, suspend or remove
officers and employees who belonged to the executive department if they are presidential appointees
or do not belonged to the classified service, for such can be justified under the principle that the
power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint

Exception:

Officers whose appointments are vested on heads of department- Congress has provided by law for a
procedure for their removal precisely in view of this constitutional authority. ex. Civil Service Act

Limitations of Power of Control:

By Congress

SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORP VS CEMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

 the Presidents Control Power over departments may still be limited by Congress in matters which
the President exercises delegated authority only, such as the fixing of tariffs rate
The DTI secretary as an alter ego of the president can still be bound by the decisions of commission
which was created by law. In any case, Congress will shall prevail.

PRESIDENTS POWER OF CONTROL EXTENDS ONLY TO THE ACT, NOT TO THE PERSON, OF
THE SUBORDINATE
He may not, by his control power, suspend or remove the official concerned without due process,
expect those officials who serve at his pleasure, e.g. cabinet secretaries and other presidential
appointees who belong to the non-competitive or unclassified service of the government. (Angco v.
Castillo, G.R. No. L-17169, November 30, 1963)

No control over management of personnel an attached agency (BEJA VS CA)

CANNOT REVERSE A FINAL DECISION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY

The Presidents power of control does not apply to reviewing, modifying or setting aside decision of
a subordinate official or body exercising quasi-judicial power after the decision has become final
pursuant to law or the rules issued to implement it. (Antique Sawmills, Inc. v. Zayco, 17 SCRA 316;
Macailing v. Andrada, 31 SCRA 126)

Subject to Judicial Review

Montes v. Civil Service Board of Appeals:

Presidents Decision on appeal from decisions of administrative agency may still be
reviewed by the courts (judicial review). The legality of his acts may still be subject to judicial
review, not because he is inferior to courts, but because he is still inferior to law.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (SEC 1-31 BOOK III)

Sec. 16. Power of Appointment. - The President shall exercise the power to appoint such
officials as provided for in the Constitution and laws.

Sec. 18. General Supervision Over Local Governments. - The President shall exercise general
supervision over local governments.

Sec. 20. Residual Powers. - Unless Congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise
such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the
laws and which are not specifically enumerated above, or which are not delegated by the
President in accordance with law.

Sec. 23. The Agencies under the Office of the President. - The agencies under the Office of the
President refer to those offices placed under the chairmanship of the President, those under
the supervision and control of the President, those under the administrative supervision of
the Office of the President, those attached to it for policy and program coordination, and those
that are not placed by law or order creating them under any specific department.

Sec. 26. The Executive Secretary, the Deputy Executive Secretaries, and the
 Assistant Executive Secretaries. - The Executive Office shall be headed by the
Executive Secretary who shall be assisted by one (1) or more Deputy Executive
Secretaries and one (1) or more Assistant Executive Secretaries.

Sec. 27. Functions of the Executive Secretary. - The Executive Secretary shall, subject to the
control and supervision of the President, carry out the functions assigned by law to
the Executive Office and shall perform such other duties as may be delegated to him.
He shall:

(1) Directly assist the President in the management of the affairs pertaining to the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines;
(2) Implement presidential directives, orders and decisions;
(3) Decide, for and in behalf of the President, matters not requiring personal presidential
attention;
(4) Exercise supervision and control over the various units in the Office of the President
Proper including their internal administrative requirements; (5) Exercise supervision, in
behalf of the President, over the various agencies under the Office of the President;
(6) Appoint officials and employees of the Office of the President whose appointments are not
vested in the President;
(7) Provide overall coordination in the operation of the Executive Office; (8) Determine and
assign matters to the appropriate units in the Office of the President;

(9) Have administrative responsibility for matters in the Office of the President coming from
the various departments and agencies of government;
(10) Exercise primary authority to sign papers "By authority of the President", attest
executive orders and other presidential issuances unless attestation is specifically delegated
to other officials by him or by the President; (11) Determine, with the President's approval,
the appropriate assignment of offices and agencies not placed by law under any specific
executive department; (12) Provide consultative, research, fact-finding and advisory service
to the President; (13) Assist the President in the performance of functions pertaining to
legislation; (14) Assist the President in the administration of special projects; (15) Take
charge of matters pertaining to protocol in State and ceremonial functions; (16) Provide
secretarial and clerical services for the President, the Cabinet, the Council of State, and other
advisory bodies to the President (17) Promulgate such rules and regulations necessary to
carry out the objectives, policies and functions of the Office of the President Proper; (18)
Perform such other functions as the President may direct.

ALTER EGO DOCTRINE, QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY, SINGLE EXECUTIVE

In general, since the act of the Secretary is presumptively the act of the President, one need not
bring the case to the Office of the President under qualified political agency doctrine.
Note: Where the particular Agencys rules provide for a mode of appeal the of Office of the President
(OP), then the last resort is the OP, and the alter-ego doctrine as exception to the doctrine of prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies shall not apply.

[e.g. (1) Director of Lands decisions approved by the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources are appealed to the OP; (2) HLURBs decisions are to be appealed to the OP.]

President can undo the act of his Department Secretary.

 The Alter-ego Doctrine simply means that the act of the Department Secretary is presumptively
that of the President, hence, the President himself may say otherwise. (LACSOB-MAGALLANES VS
PANO)

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (SEC 1-71 BOOK IV)

Supervision and Control

Administrative Supervision
Attachment
(Sec. 38, Ch. 7, Book IV

III. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN GENERAL

A. Quasi-Legislative Power

Definition:
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
power to make rules which results in delegated legislation and is within the confines of the
granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. (SMART
COMMUNICATIONS VS NTC)

Distinguished from Legislative Power:

Legislative power- power to promulgate laws; Only Congress has the discretion to determine what
the law shall be.
Administrative regulations are intended only to implement the law and to carry out the legislative
policy.

Source:
Legislature by virtue of valid delegation; maybe expressed or implied

Test of Valid Delegation:

Completeness Test
Sufficient Standard Test

B. Quasi-judicial Power

Power of adjudication, enables the administrative body to resolve, in a manner essentially judicial,
factual and sometimes even legal questions incidental to its primary power of enforcement of the
law.

Source:
-Incidental to the power of regulation vested in the administrative body but often expressly
conferred by the legislature through specific provisions in the charter of the agency

Determinative Power

1. Enabling power- permit the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate which would be
unlawful without government approval
Ex. Issuance of licenses
 2. Directing power- Order the doing of particular acts to ensure compliance with the law and often
exercised for corrective purposes
Ex. NLRC- order reinstatement of employee

2.1. Dispensing power- relax operation of law or exempt from performance of general duty
2.2. Summary power- use of force upon persons without the necessity of judicial warrant
2.3. Examining power- enables to inspect the records and premises, investigate activities,
persons, hearings, issue writs, punish for contempt

DEFINITIONS, DISTINCTIONS OF TERMS

Legislation plenary (full or unqualified, subject only to constitutional and inherent limitations);
discretion as to what the law shall be. This discretion cannot be delegated.
Quasi-legislation (QL) qualified, subject to statutory and constitutional limitations, discretion is as
to how the law shall be enforced. This can be delegated.
Other terms of QL: subordinate legislation, rule-making power
Judicial Power adjudication of controversy by determining rights or duties by the application of
law; interpretation of law in conclusive;
Quasi-judicial (QJ) involves determination of facts in a judicial manner (means that the exercise
of QJ power involves reception of evidence, evaluation of evidence, determination of facts based on
evidence and application of law to the case to determine rights and duties/obligations of the
parties); interpretation of law is initial;

WHY GRANT AGENCY QJ FUNCTION?

Since implementation of law requires understanding of the law, administrative agencies should
also be authorized to interpret the law and apply it to the given condition or set of facts.
There is need for the active intervention of administrative agencies in matters calling for technical
knowledge and speed in countless controversies.
In this era of clogged dockets, the need for specialized knowledge, expertise and capability to hear
promptly disputes on technical matters has become indispensable

WHY DISTINGUISH QL FROM QJ?

QJ requires notice and hearing, QL only requires publication as a general rule.
QJ sets different requirements for resort to court: e.g. doctrine of prior exhaustion of administrative
remedy applies (See: Smart v. NTC case)
QJ decisions are, generally, brought to the CA/SC because QJ agencies are deemed equal in rank with
RTC. If QL only, RTC generally

C. Implied Powers

Implied from express powers, such as the power to promulgate rules of procedure by a QJ body
Doctrine of Necessary Implication

Issue Cease and Desist Order

Laguna Lake Development Authority case:
The SC said that while the law does not expressly grant the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) the
power to issue a cease and desist order, the power is however implied in the express power
to regulate and adjudicate pollution cases, without which the PAB becomes toothless.

Limitation:
The Doctrine of Necessary Implication does not authorize the exercise of powers greater than
the express powers, such that , for example, the power to regulate does not include the power to
 prohibit; nor does the power to investigate necessarily include the power to adjudicate (Cario
v. CHR [1991])

Authority to enforce/execute judgment it renders

GSIS v. CSC case:
It would appear absurd to deny to the Civil Service Commission the power or authority to
enforce or order execution of its decisions, resolutions or orders The grant to a tribunal or
agency of adjudicatory power, or the authority to hear and adjudge cases, should normally
and logically be deemed to include the grant of authority to enforce or execute the judgments
it thus renders, unless the law otherwise provides.

Power to promulgate own rules and procedures

Doctrine Of Necessary Implication gives a QJ body the power to adopt method of procedure to
carry out its functions, PROVIDED, the procedure will not violate fundamental rights or
encroach rule-making power of the SC!(PROVIDENT TREE FARMS vs BATARIO)

Divide itself into several divisions

Rules of procedure of administrative bodies should be liberally construed in order to enable it to
effectively exercise its function. Hence, even if the law does not expressly provide for it, a QJ body
may divide itself into several divisions and assign to it the power conferred upon the body. (REALTY
EXCHANGE VENTURE CORP VS SENDINO)

D. Exercise of Powers

Duties of administrative body are generally discretionary (interpretation or

construction of law; enforcement of law and appreciation of factual questions)

Some duties are ministerial

Jurisdiction and powers are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied
from those granted in the legislation creating such bodies.

HOW SHOULD THE EXERCISE OF POWERS OF ADMIN AGENCIES CONSTURED, LIBERALLY OR

STRICTLY?
Matienzo case:
the authority given should be liberally construed in the light of the purposes for which it was
created, and that which is incidentally necessary to a full implementation of the legislative intent
should be upheld as being germane to the law.

But, Azarcon case says:

while the BIR had authority to require Petitioner Azarcon to sign a receipt for the distrained truck,
the NIRC did not grant it power to appoint Azarcon as public officer. Admin bodies have only the
powers expressly granted or necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. (strictly?)

IV. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER

A. Delegation of Legislative Power

Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation

 While the making of laws is a non-delegable activity that corresponds solely to Congress,
nevertheless the latter may constitutionally delegate authority to promulgate rules an
regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies, because the legislature
often finds it impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and
complex situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. (People v. Exconde)

NATURE OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION:

It is elementary that rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law which
they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect.
Administrative issuances partake of the nature of a statute and have in their favor a
presumption of legality Unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no
option but to apply the same.
(LBP v. Celada)

FUNDAMENTAL LIMITATION
Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, not to supplant nor to modify,
the lay. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress. In case of discrepancy
between a provision of statute and a rule or regulation issued to implement said statute, the
statutory provision prevails. (Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice [1998])

TESTS OF DELEGATION
tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate.

Completeness 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.

When is a law complete for purposes of delegation?

It must identify:
1. The SUBJECT MATTER to be delegated
2. WHO will do it
3. HOW the delegate will do it (SCOPE OF AUTHORITY)

Sufficient Standard Test: there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

EXAMPLES OF SUFFICIENT STANDARD:

fair and equitable employment practices
public interest
justice and equity
public convenience and welfare
simplicity, economy and efficiency
NOTE: However, the standard should not allow unbridled discretion (ex. may see fit)

TATAD vs SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Even is the law does not expressly pinpoint the standard, the courst will bend over backward to
locate the same elsewhere in order to spare the stature, if it can, from constitutional infirmity.

Use of as far as practicable, declining and stable even if not defined in RA 8180 does not mean it
did not pass the 2 Tests as the meanings of such words are well settled and cannot confuse men of
reasonable intelligence.
 SANTIAGO VS COMELEC

DOCTRINE OF POTESTAS DELEGATA NON DELEGARI POTEST

KMU v. Garcia:

-Public Service Commission allowed bus operators to fix fare rates;

American Tobacco v. Director of Patents

-What has been delegated was only the discretion to ascertain facts but did not include the
discretion to decide on application for patents.

B. Kinds of Administrative Regulation

Legislative (Rule-making)
-subordinate legislation designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof
(CIR vs CA)

Interpretative
-purport to do no more than interpret the statute being administered, to say what it means
-merely persuasive and is received by courts with much respect but not finality. It is at best advisory
for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. (PERALTA vs CSC)

Internal

How to distinguish one from the other:

If it did not add any duty or detail that was not already in the law, it is mere interpretation!

But, why distinguish one from the other?

SIGNIFICANCE OF DISTINCTION
Interpretation of rules does not, as a general rule, require publication, in order to comply with
administrative due process. Also, rules are generally binding on courts, unlike
interpretations of rules which are at best advisory subject always to judicial
interpretation.
C. REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS

1. AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries (2206):
It was argued that Section 3.1 of EO 156 (which banned the importation of used vehicle) lacked
any statutory basis for the President to issue the same because it is an exercise of police
power vested on the legislature.
The SC ruled that the TCC (Sec. 401) authorizes the President, in the interest of national
economy, general welfare and/or national security, to inter alia, prohibit the importation
of any commodity

TAYUG RURAL BANK VS CENTRAL BANK

 When Congress authorizes the promulgation of administrative rules and regulations to
implement given legislation, all that is requires is that the regulation be not in
contravention with it but conform to the standards that the law prescribes

2. WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY (NOT ULTRA VIRES)

-regulation must not be ultra vires. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress (Boie-
Takeda Chemicals Inc vs Dela Serna)
-limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment (Miners association
of the Phils vs Factoran)
-

People v. Maceren:
In implementing the provisions of the Fishing Law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources cannot prohibit electro fishing because the statute only prohibited fishing with the use of
obnoxious or poisonous substance. The administrative rule cannot be extended to amending or
expanding the statute it seeks to implement.

ROMULO, MABANTA, BUENAVENTURA, SAYOC &DE LOS ANGELES VS HDMF

- Administrative issuances must not override, supplant or modify the law, but must
remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. A department zeal may not be
permitted to outrun the authority conferred by the statute.
-
HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. DEFENSOR (2006)
Where a rule or regulation has a provision not expressly stated or contained in the statute being
implemented, that provision does not necessarily contradict the statute. A legislative rule is in
nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the
details thereof.
All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the
law; that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in conformity with the standards
prescribed by the law.

ATTY. ORCEO V. COMELEC (2010)

The COMELEC had the authority to promulgate Resolution No 8714 pursuant to Sec. 35 of R.A. No.
7166. It was granted the power to issue the implementing rules of Secs. 32 and 33 of R.A. No. 7166.
The COMELEC was mandated to provide the details of who may bear, carry or transport firearms or
other deadly weapons, as well as the definition of firearms, among others.
These details are left to the discretion of the COMELEC, which is a constitutional body that possesses
special knowledge and expertise on election matters, with the objective of ensuring the holding of
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections
Where a rule has a provision not expressly stated or contained in the statute being implemented, that
provision does not necessarily contradict the statute All that is required is that the regulation
should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in contradiction
to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law.

3. Observance of Prescribed Procedure; Notice and Hearing; Publication

Observance of Prescribed Procedure

Examples:
 Filing with UP Law Center

The Adm. Code of 1987, Section 3 1 thereof, expressly requires each agency to file with the Office of
the National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center
three certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Administrative issuances which are not
published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be enforced. (GMA v. MTRCB [2007])

Investigation and public hearings for regulatory measure as provided for in Tariff
and Customs Law

Notice and Hearing

G.R. Promulgation of administrative regulations of general application does not require previous
notice and hearing

EXCEPTIONS:

a)When legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on certain facts
as determined at an appropriate investigation

Executive Order 172 creating the Energy Regulatory Board which provided for the rule that the ERB
may fix the prices of petroleum products only upon notice and hearing, although provisional rates
may be issued ex parte.

b)When the administrative rule substantially adds or increases the burdens of those directly affected

CIR vs. CA (261 SCRA 236)

When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further
than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already
prescribed. When the administrative rule goes beyond and substantially adds to or increases
the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord those directly affected a
chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the
force and effect of law.

RCPI vs NTC

Jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies, like NTC, are limited to those expressly granted
or necessarily implied from those granted in the legislation creating such body; and any order
without or beyond such jurisdiction is void and ineffective.
Phil. Consumers Foundation Inc. vs Secretary of Education Culture and Sports

The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a legislative or an

adjudicative function.

If it were a legislative (the rules and/or rates laid down by an administrative agency are meant to
apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country)- prior notice and hearing to the
affected parties is not a requirement of due process.

As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial

function(rules and the rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party, based upon a finding of
fact ) -prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates.

GMA vs COMELEC

-Issuance of Resolution No. 9615 limiting aggregate airtime

SC: It must not be overlooked that the new Resolution introduced a radical change in the manner in
which the rules on airtime for political advertisements are to be reckoned. As such there is a need for
adequate and effective means by which they may be adopted, disseminated and implemented. In this
regard, it is not enough that they be published - or explained - after they have been adopted.

Publication

a) Administrative rules and Regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation
b) General in application
c) Penal in nature

Exception:

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, letters of instructions- (regulating
only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public)- need not be published.

RUBENECIA VS CSC

Issuance of CSC Resolution No. 93-2387 dictating : decision in administrative cases appealable to the
Commission not to the MSPB. Pending case in MSPB required to be elevated to CSC.
 Officer charged with Administrative case argued CSC has no jurisdiction as he was not sent noticed.
But Resolution 93-2387 was published.

SC:
the fact remains that Resolution No. 93-2387 was published in a newspaper of general circulation

PHIL. INTERNATIONL TRADING CORP vs COA

-AO issuance is valid exercise of a power ancillary to legislation;cited TANADA vs TUVERA on the
requirement of publication under Art 2 of NCC

- Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in
the exercise of legislative powers or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution.

-publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the
contents of the laws.

-The fact that the amendments to AO were filed with, and published by the UP Law Center in the
National Administrative Register, does not cure the defect related to the effectivity of the
Administrative Order.

4. Fair and Reasonable

-not arbitrary as to violate due process; if involves public welfare, the method involved must
be reasonably related to the purpose of the rule.

EXECUTIVE SEC. vs SOUTHWING HEAVY INDUSTRIES INC

-EO issued banning entry of some imported vehicles

-the issuance of the ban to protect the domestic industry is a reasonable exercise of police
power. The deterioration of the local motor manufacturing firms due to the influx of imported used
motor vehicles is an urgent national concern that needs to be swiftly addressed by the President. In
the exercise of delegated police power, the executive can therefore validly proscribe the importation
of these vehicles.

D. Penal Regulations

G.R. Violations of administrative regulations cannot give rise to criminal prosecution

Exc: When the legislature makes such violation punishable and imposes corresponding sanctions

Rule with Penalties

REQUIREMENTS FOR VALIDITY:

1. The statute has declared the violation punishable;
2. The statute must have imposed and specified the penalty for the violation;

3. The rule must be PUBLISHED.

PESIGAN vs ANGELES
-EO prohibiting transport of carabao from one province to another was published only after the
alleged violation
-Confiscation of carabaos is deemed invalid

CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION

-Regulation should be read in harmony with the statute and not in violation of the authority
conferred on the administrative authorities
-operate only prospectively unless contrary s manifest (express or necessary implication)
-Opinions of the Secretary of Justice are material In the construction of statues in pare materia
-Interpretation to rule by those charged with its execution is entitled to the greatest weight unless
such interpretation appears to be clearly unreasonable or arbitrary (ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL INC
vs COMMISSION ON CUSTOMS; PHIL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS vs RELOVA)
- While it is doctrinal in administrative law that the rules and regulations of administrative bodies
interpreting the law they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law, these issuances are by no
means iron- clad norms. Administrative bodies themselves can and have in fact bent the rules for
reasons of public interest(PHIL. HEALTH INSURANCE CORP vs CHINESE GEN. HOSPITAL & MEDICAL
CENTER)

PERALTA vs CSC (212 scra 425- the one in the syllabus)

- Administrative construction, if we may repeat, is not necessarily binding upon the courts. Action of
an administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error
of law, or abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with
either the letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment.

E. ENFORCEMENT

The power to promulgate administrative regulations carries with it the implied power to enforce
them

Includes the power to issue opinions and rulings to enable the administrative agency to properly
execute said regulations

PERALTA vs CSC 462 scra 382

-opinions and rulings bind government agencies otherwise authority given to them would be useless
and rendered impotent by govt agencies who can simply choose to ignore their opinions and rulings
on the convenient ground that they are not binding.

G. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
 - necessarily includes the power to amend, revise, alter or repeal
- prior issuances that are inconsistent are deemed repealed or modified

Administrative Regulations subject to amendment or repeal by:

1. Legislature
2. Authority that promulgated them no exhaustion as to how many times exercised

V. QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER

A. Meaning and Characteristics of Quasi-Judicial or Adjudicatory Power

The function of granting, denying, suspending or revoking license, permit, franchise or

certificate of public convenience and/or necessity is not just purely administrative, but quasi-
judicial or adjudicative function because it is dependent upon the ascertainment of facts by the
agency upon which a decision is to be made and rights and liabilities determined.

the policy of courts is not to interfere with the factual findings of administrative agency under
the principle of separation of powers and co-equality of branches of government, unless there is
clear showing of capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment or grave abuse of
discretion.(Saada v. Court of Appeals)

In the power to adjudicate, there is an application of law or settlement of dispute as compared to

power to investigate only. (CHR vs CARINO)

deemed co-equal with the RTC. Hence, their decisions should be elevated to the Court of Appeals
(or, the Supreme Court if warranted depending on the relief), and not to the RTC, except in DAR
initial determination of just compensation.
(PCGG v. Pea)

-function includes investigation or ascertainment of the existence of facts, hold hearings, draw
conclusions. However, this does not make the QJ bodies court or parts of the judicial system, so that
they (or the executive dept.) cannot impose judgment upon the judiciary. (United Residents of
Dominican Hills case)

- Constitutional mandate that decisions must indicate facts and laws on which it is based applies to
quasi-judicial bodies. But DOJ is not quasi-judicial so mandate is not applicable (MERALCO vs CA)

RES JUDICATA only applies to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of
administrative functions.( ENCINAS vs AGUSTIN, JR)

-preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding (SANTOS vs GO)

Distinction from Judicial power and Quasi-legislative power

-see notes above

C. Requirments for valid exercise

 1. Jurisdiction
Globe Wireless Ltd. V. Public Service Commission, 147 SCRA 269:
Adjudicative power is limited by law. Allowed are only those expressly granted or
necessarily from those granted in the law creating the agency. PSCs jurisdiction is
limited by law to its power over Globe in matters of rates which it may charge the public,
excluded is the determination of Globes liability in failing to deliver telegraphic message by
the complainant/addressee.

MERALCO vs CA

What determines the nature of the action, as well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case,
are the allegations in the complaint; when what is questioned is the manner the power was
exercised- regular courts has jurisdiction.

SYQUIA vs BOARD OF POWER and WATER WORKS

When issue is civil in nature, such as the contractual obligations, regular courts has jurisdiction.

MARINO, JR vs GAMILLA

Administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and as such, can exercise only those
powers which are specifically granted to them by their enabling statutes. Consequently, matters over
which they are not granted authority are beyond their competence. While the trend is towards
vesting administrative bodies with the power to adjudicate matters coming under their particular
specialization, to ensure a more knowledgeable solution of the problems submitted to them, this
should not deprive the courts of justice their power to decide ordinary cases in accordance with the
general laws that do not require any particular expertise or training to interpret and apply.

2. Due Process
Utto v. Comelec, 375 SCRA 523:
The essence of administrative due process is simply opportunity to be heard, or
opportunity to explain ones side, or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.

- Garcia v. Pajaro, 384 SCRA 122:

Technical rules of Procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative
proceedings. One may be heard not solely by verbal presentation in an oral argument but also
through pleadings. Administrative due process is deemed satisfied for as long as a person is
given opportunity to seek reconsideration of an action or a ruling.

- Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil 635:

Requisites of administrative due process, enumerated:
(1) The right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or
affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof.

(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce
evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider
the evidence presented.
 (3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply
a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its
decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when directly
attached.

(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the
evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.

(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.

(6) The administrative body or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept
the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.

(7) The administrative body, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the
reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the
authority conferred upon it.

Rivera v. CSC, 240 SCRA 43:

Requirement of impartiality of the tribunal applies to administrative due process.
- reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise,
there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case.

ATIENZA, JR. V. COMELEC (2010)

The requirements of administrative due process do not apply to the internal affairs of
political parties. The due process standards set in Ang Tibay cover only administrative bodies created
by the state and through which certain governmental acts or functions are performed.

CORONA vs CA
It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, including those before the Ombudsman, cases
may be submitted for resolution on the basis of affidavits and pleadings. The standard of due process
that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is
not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an
administrative agency to resolve a casebased solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary
evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct
testimonies.

CATACUTAN vs PEOPLE

There is also no denial of due process when the trial court did not allow petitioner to introduce as
evidence the CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 51795. It is well within the courts discretion to reject the
presentation of evidence which it judiciously believes irrelevant and impertinent to the proceeding
on hand. This is specially true when the evidence sought to be presented in a criminal proceeding as
in this case, concerns an administrative matter.

EXCEPTIONS TO NOTICE AND HEARING AS REQUIREMENTS FOR DUE PROCESS

Summary Abatement of Nuisance per se (police power)

 Preventive Suspension (it is not a penalty)
Padlocking of filthy restaurants, theaters, etc. (they are actually nuisance per se)
Cancellation of Passport of accused (pragmatism, accused may escape)
Summary distraint and levy (lifeblood theory of taxation; need for taxes)
Grant of Provisional Authority (temporary only)

D. Related Powers:

a. Power to promulgate own Rules and Procedures

implied in its power of adjudication; but admin rules of procedure should be
construed liberally in order to promote their object and assist parties in obtaining a
jus, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses

Doctrine Of Necessary Implication gives a QJ body the power to adopt method of procedure to
carry out its functions, PROVIDED, the procedure will not violate fundamental rights or
encroach rule-making power of the SC.

b. Subpoena power
- not inherent in admin bodies; only when the allowed by law and authorized to
investigate
CARMELO vs RAMOS
-even if with investigative powers, not automatic that it can summon witnesses or take
testimony in absence of clear grant of power from legislature
c. Contempt power- not inherent, must be expressly conferred upon the body, only used in
conjunction with its quasi-judicial functions; proper remedy is to ask proper court for
assistance

AUTHORIZED BY LAW

The authority may be found in the:

1. Law/Charter itself, or
2. Section 13, Chapter 3, Book VII of Admin Code 2 (in cases of agencies created by the Admin
Code, e.g. bureaus).

E. Quantum of Proof

PLDT v. Tiamson
Although admissible in evidence, affidavits being self-serving must be received with caution.
This is because the adverse party is not afforded any opportunity to test their veracity. By
themselves, generalized and pro forma affidavits cannot constitute relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind may accept as adequate. There must be some other relevant evidence
to corroborate such affidavits.

Lamyera vs Pangilinan
While it is settled doctrine that findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected and
this Court should not be tasked to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the administrative
body, it is axiomatic that such findings of fact should be supported by substantial evidence.

ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD vs CA

In reviewing administrative decisions, the findings of fact made therein must be respected as long as
they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or preponderant; that it is not
for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of the witnesses
or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of
evidence; that the administrative decision in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set
aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.

F. Form of Decision
Constitutional mandate in Sec 14 Art VIII does not apply to decisions of administrative
bodies
Appeals- Department head whose decision can be brought to the regular courts, except as
otherwise provided for by law

G. Enforcement and Execution

Statute must provide for the enforcement of administrative determination

If not conferred with power to enforce their quasi-judicial decisions, admin agencies can invoke court
action for such purpose

H. Res Judicata in Administrative Decisions

I. San Luis v. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 258

Although a judicial concept in origin, res judicata now applies to QJ decisions. The elements are: (a)
sameness of causes of actions, (b) sameness of issues, (c) identity of parties/privies.

NOTE: In Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa 197 SCRA 853, there is no res judicata in
administrative adjudication of citizenship unless certain requisites (3) are present: Supreme
Court Decision, main issue and SolGens participation.

SAN LUIS vs CA
res judicata applies to decisions of admin agencies pursuant to their QUASI-JUDICIAL
authority upon their FINALITY

Also applies to judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or admin offices acting
within their jurisdiction
(not if in exercise of purely administrative functions; or as in labor relations proceedings)

VI. JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. Judicial Review of Administrative Rules

HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs DEFENSOR

- In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative

 agency, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court

B. Bases for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

a) Constitution
b) Statutes
c) Rules of Court

C. Methods of Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE ACTS/RULES:

- RTC (Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation; validity)

QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS:

- Rule 43 (to the CA)

(Mixed Questions of FACTS and LAW)
- Rule 45 (to the SC)
(Pure Question of LAW)
- Rule 65 (to the CA [following Hierarchy of Courts Doctrine])
(Grave Abuse of Discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction)

D. Subjects of Review

a. Questions of Fact
-exist when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the
query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the
witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as thri
relation to each other and to the whole and the probability of the situation

-review of admin decision is discretionary upon the Legislature; denial of remedy does not
violate due process
-findings of fact of admin agencies on matters under their jurisdiction are generally accorded
respect; must be supported by substantial evidence

b. Questions of Law

-exist when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a
certain set of facts or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative values of
evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.

BASIC RULES ON REVIEW

1. Decisions must be based on SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ONLY;

2. Findings of facts made therein are to be respected so long as there are supported by
substantial evidence; Hence, it is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence,
determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment with that of the QJ Body;
3. Administrative decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof
of: (1) gross abuse of discretion,
(2) fraud, or
(3) error of law.

See: Ombudsman v. Bungubung (2008), citing Montemayor v. Bundalian (2003)

Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the
Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. The Court may
punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

APPLICABILITY: WHEN REGULAR COURTS HAVE ALSO CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER
RULE: THE REGULAR COURT REFERS THE MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WHICH
HAS THE COMPETENCE TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY (ORDINARILY REQUIRING EXPERTISE OR
SKILL).
EFFECT: THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IS SUSPENDED PENDING REFERRAL TO THE QJ BODY

DOCTRINE OF PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

APPLICABILITY: WHEN REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND RESORT TO

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES ARE MADE CONDITION PRECENDENT BEFORE THE CONTROVERSY
CAN BE BROUGHT TO THE COURT.
RULE: THE REGULAR COURT WILL DISMISS THE CASE OF THERE IS NON-COMPLIANCE.
EFFECT: DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
NOTE: THERE ARE SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS

EXCEPTIONS

Pure Question of Law

Agency is estopped
Act is patently illegal
Urgent need for judicial intervention Small Claims
Irreparable Damage will be suffered
No other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
Strong public interest
Private Land
Quo Warranto

EFFECT OF NONCOMPLIANCE OF THE DOCTRINE

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

-not affect jurisdiction; only deprive the complainant of a cause of action (ground for
motion to dismiss but if not invoked, deemed waived)