ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Atty. George Erwin M. Garcia

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Definition
 branch of public law which fixes the organization and
determines the competence of administrative authorities
and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation
of his rights.

Kinds
1. Statutes setting up administrative authorities (AA)
2. Rules, regulations or orders of such AA
3. Determinations, decisions and orders made in the settlement of
controversies
4. Body of doctrines and decisions

Administration
 meaning in 2 different senses
- as a function
- as an organization

 distinguished from government

 kinds
- internal
- external

Administrative Bodies or Agencies

 Definition
 Creation
- constitutional provision
- legislative enactment
- authority of law
 Criterion
 Types

II. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

 Quasi-legislative / Rule-making Power
 Quasi-judicial / Adjudicatory Power
 Determinative Powers
A. Quasi-legislative Power

1. Nature

Cases:
Holy Spirit Homeowners Association v. Secretary Defensor
(GR. No. 163980, Aug. 3, 2006)
- SC said that quasi-legislative power is the power to make
rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is
within the confine f the granting statute and the doctrine of non-
delegability and separation of powers.

Phil. Associaton of Service Exporters v. Torres (225 SCRA

417)
- Both LOI and EOs are presidential issuances; one may
repeal or otherwise alter, modify or amend the other, depending on
which comes later.

Landbank v. CA (249 SCRA 149)

- The function of promulgating rules and regulations maybe
legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of the law into effect.
- Administrative regulations cannot extend the law or amend
a legislative enactment.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CA (240 SCRA 368)

- Administrative issuance must not override, but must
remain consistent with the law they seek to apply and implement.

Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA (GR No. 116356)

- An administrative agency like PPA has no discretion
whether or not to implement a law. Its duty is to enforce the law.
Thus, if there is a conflict between PPA circulars and a law like EO
1088, the latter prevails.

2. Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations

a. Supplementary or detailed legislation
b. Interpretative legislation
c. Contingent legislation

3. Requisites for Validity

a. issued under authority of law (Olsen v. Aldanes, 43 Phil
64)
 b. within the scope and purview of the law

Public Schools District Supervisors Association

v. Hon. Edilberto De Jesus, (G.R. No. 157299,
June 19 2006)
- The implementing rules and regulations of a
law cannot extend the law or expand its coverage, as
the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in
the legislature. However administrative bodies are
allowed, under their power of subordinate legislation,
to implement the broad policies laid down in the
statute by “filling in” the details.

Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators

v. Philippine Coconut Authority, (GR. No.
110526)
- Where the regulatory system has been set up
by law, it is beyond the power of an administrative
agency to dismantle it. Any change in policy must be
made by the legislative department.

c. Reasonable (Lupangco v. CA. 160 SCRA 848)

d. Publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation as provided in EO No. 200

De Jesus v. Commission on Audit (GR. No.

109023)
- It was held that administrative rules and
regulations the purpose of which is to enforce or
implement an existing law pursuant to a valid
delegation must be published except interpretative
regulations and those merely internal in nature.

4. Administrative rules with penal sanctions; additional requisites;

a. the law must itself declare as punishable the violation of
the administrative rule or regulation (People v. Maceren
79 SCRA 450)
b. the law should define or fix the penalty for the violation
of the administrative rule or regulation.
 5. Necessity for notice and hearing

- There is no constitutional requirement for a hearing in the

promulgation of a general regulation by an administrative
body.

Philippine Consumers Foundation v. Secretary, DECS (153

SCRA 622)
- It was held that the function of prescribing rates by
an administrative agency maybe either a legislative or an
adjudicative function. If it were a legislative function, the
grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is
not a requirement of due process. As regards rates
prescribed by an administrative in the exercise of its quasi-
judicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to the
validity of such rates.

B. Determinative Powers

1. Enabling – to permit or allow something which the law

undertakes to regulate

2. Directing – illustrated by the power of assessment of the BIR or

the Bureau of Customs.

3. Dispensing – to exempt from a general prohibition, or relieve an

individual or corporation from an affirmative duty

4. Examining – also called the investigatory power

> power to compel attendance of witnesses not inherent in
administrative body
> power to punish contempt must be expressly granted to
the administrative body and when so granted, may be
exercised only when administrative body is actually
performing quasi-judicial functions.

5. Summary – power to apply compulsion or force against persons

or property to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant
to authorize such action.
C. Quasi-judicial or Adjudicatory Power

1. Proceedings
> It partakes of the character of judicial proceedings.
Administrative body is normally granted the authority to
promulgate its own rules of procedures, provided they do
not increase, diminish or modify substantive rights, and
subject to disapproval by the SC.

2. Administrative Due Process

> requisites of administrative due process as enumerated in
Ang Tibay v. CIR (40 O.G. 7th Supp. 129)

3. Cases:

Civil Service Commission v. Lucas (GR. No. 127838,

Jan 21, 1999)
- Administrative proceedings are not exempt from
basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the
right to due process in investigations and hearings. The right
to substantive and procedural due process is applicable in
administrative proceedings.

Lumiqued v. Exenea, (GR. No. 117565, Nov. 18,

1997)
- Administrative due process does not necessarily
require the assistance of counsel.

Gonzales v. NLRC and Ateneo de Davao University

(GR. No. 125735, August 26, 1999)
- SC held that there was a violation of administrative
due process where the teacher was dismissed by the
university without having been given full opportunity to
confront the “witnesses” against her.

Adamson v. Amores (152 SCRA 237)

- The standard of due process that must be met in
administrative tribunals allows 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.

Casimiro v. Tandog (GR. No. 146137, June 8, 2005)

 - “To be heard” does not mean only verbal arguments
in court; one may also be heard through pleadings. Where
opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or
pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
process.

4. Administrative determinations where notice and hearing are not

necessary for due process.
> grant of provisional authority for increased rates, or to
engage in a particular line of business
> summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon the
property of a delinquent taxpayer.
> summary abatement of a nuisance per se which affects
the immediate safety of a persons or property.
> preventive suspension of a public officer or employee
pending investigation of administrative charges filed against
him.

5. Power to punish contempt is inherently judicial ; maybe exercised

only if expressly conferred by law, and when administrative body is
engaged in the performance of its quasi-judicial powers.

6. Administrative decisions not part of the legal system.

7. Administrative Appeal and Review.

8. Doctrine of Res Judicata

Ysmael v. Deputy Executive Secretary (190 SCRA

673)
- SC said that decisions and orders of administrative
agencies have upon their finality, the force and binding
effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine
of res judicata. These decisions and orders are as conclusive
upon the rights of the affected parties as though a court of
general jurisdiction had rendered the same. The rule of res
judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter one
determined by competent authority acting within their
exclusive jurisdiction.

Board of Commissioners, CID v. Judge de la Rosa (197 SCRA

853) and Zita Ngo Burca v. Republic
 - The doctrine does not apply in administrative
adjudication relative to citizenship except when the following
conditions are met:
1. the question of citizenship is resolved by a court or
an administrative body as a material issue in the controversy
after a full-blown hearing;
2. with the active participation of the Solicitor
General;
3. the finding made by the administrative body on the
citizenship issue is affirmed by the SC.

III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

A. The Doctrine
 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.
(Aquino v. Mariano, 129 SCRA 532; Union Bank v. CA,
290 SCRA 198)

Rationale:

a. If relief is first sought from a superior administrative agency,

resort to the courts maybe unnecessary;
b. The administrative agency should be given a chance to correct
its error;
c. Principles of comity and convenience require that the courts
stay their hand until the administrative processes are
completed.
d. Since judicial review of administrative decisions is usually made
through special civil actions, such proceedings will not normally
prosper if there is another plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of the law.

Smart Communications v. NTC (GR. No. 151908, August 12,

2003)
- The doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction applies only
where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or
adjudicatory powers. Thus, where what is assailed is the validity or
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency
in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have
jurisdiction to pass upon the same.
B. Corollary Principle

1. Doctrine of Prior Resort / Doctrine of Primary Administrative

Jurisdiction

 Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested

upon an administrative body to act upon a matter, no
resort to the courts maybe made before such
administrative body shall have acted upon the matter.

2. Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action

 No resort to the courts will be allowed unless the

administrative action has been completed and there is
nothing left to be done in the administrative structure

C. Effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies

- The jurisdiction of the court is not affected; but the complainant

is deprived of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to
dismiss. However, if no motion to dismiss is filed on this ground,
there is deemed to be a waiver.

D. Exceptions to the doctrine:

a. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego doctrine);

b. Where the administrative remedy is fruitless;
c. Where there is estoppel on the part of the administrative
agency;
d. Where the issue involved is purely legal question;
e. Where the administrative action is patently illegal, amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction;
f. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction;
g. Where there is irreparable injury or threat thereof, unless
judicial recourse is immediately made.
h. In land cases, where the subject matter is private land;
i. Where the law does not make exhaustion a condition precedent
to judicial recourse;
j. Where observance of the doctrine will result in the nullification
of the claim;
k. Where there are special reasons or circumstances demanding
immediate court action;
l. Where due process of law is clearly violated;
 m. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy.

IV. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

A. Rule

 Except when the Constitution requires or allows it, judicial

review maybe granted or withheld as Congress chooses.
 The law may provide that a determination made by an
administrative agency shall be final and unreviewable. In such
case, there is no violation of due process.
 Sec. 1 par. 2 Art. VIII of Constitution – Judicial review of
administrative decisions cannot be denied the courts when
there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion.

B. Bases for Judicial Review

1. The Constitution
2. Statutes
3. General principles of law

C. Methods of obtaining Judicial Review

1. Statutory or Non-Statutory
2. Direct or Collateral

D. What court has jurisdiction

E. Questions which maybe subject of judicial review

1. Questions of Law
2. Question of Fact when:
 expressly allowed by statute
 fraud, imposition or mistake other than error of
judgment in evaluating the evidence
 error in appreciation of the pleadings and in the
interpretation of the documentary evidence presented
by the parties.
3. Mixed Questions of Law and Fact (Brandeis Doctrine of
Assimilation of Facts).
F. Guidelines for the exercise of the power

1. Finding of fact are respected as long as they are supported by

substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or
preponderant.
2. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting
evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses or otherwise
substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency on
the sufficiency of evidence.
3. The administrative decision in matters within the executive
jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of
discretion, fraud, collusion or error of law.

G. Judicial Review is not trial de novo

 It is merely an ascertainment of whether the findings of the

administrative agency are consistent with law, free from
fraud or imposition, and supported by evidence.