ADMINLAW ANSWER KEY

1. In administrative proceedings, due process simply means an opportunity to seek a

reconsideration of the order complained of; it cannot be fully equated to due process in
its strict jurisprudential sense. A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to
be informed of the preliminary findings and recommendations; he is entitled only to a
reasonable opportunity to be heard, and to the administrative decision based on
substantial evidence. (Velasquez v. CA, G.R. No. 150732, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 357).

2. 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. The underlying principles of
the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the
administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide
the same correctly. There are both legal and practical reasons for the principle. The
administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and speedier solutions to
disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and
provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts – for reasons
of law, comity, and convenience – will not entertain a case unless the available
administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have
been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative
forum. (Berdin, et al. v. Hon. Eufracio Mascarinas, et al., G.R. No. 135928, July 6, 2007,
Tinga, J).

3. Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of

primary jurisdiction; that is, 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 administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact.

4. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (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 small so 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) when its application may cause great
and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when
the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is
involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings.

5. Discuss Quasi-Judicial Power of an administrative agency --- page 104

6. Presumption of Regularity of public officers --- page 22
7. Reorganization--- page 6
8. Ministerial Power and Discretionary Power --- page 15
9. President’s Power of control --- page 26
10. Qualified Political Agency --- page 28
11. Residual Power --- page 38
12. Investigative power --- page 40
13. Delegation of Legislative Power --- page 62
14. Tests to determine validity of delegation --- page 65
15. Test if determine forum shopping --- page 126
16. Substantial evidence --- page 133
17. Due process requisites --- page 137
18. Res Judicata --- page 165
19. PetRev vs Pet for Certiorari – page 205