ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

By: the doLAWmites and Facio ut Facias Group

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Administrative law is that branch of modern law under which the executive department
of the government, acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the
conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community. It is a
branch of public law which fixes the organization, determines the competence of administrative
authorities, and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of his rights.

Administrative law is the law concerning the powers and procedures of administrative
agencies, including specially the law governing judicial review of administrative actions.
According to scholars, a broad conception of administrative law is that it is the amalgamation of
public laws (i.e., constitutional provisions, legislative statutes, judicial opinions, executive
directives) that addresses the democratic legitimacy, control, and performance of administrative
authority and discretion by specifying the legal structures, procedures, and standards utilized by
government agencies with an emphasis on the role of institutional oversight by the courts. [Andrew
Osorio, Foundations of the Administrative Law (2016)]

This seems to conform with the understanding of this area of law in the Philippines.
Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and
affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better
carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by
the organic law of its existence. [In Re: Rodolfo v. Manzano, A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC (1988)]

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS

a. Why did administrative agencies come about?

(1) Growing complexities of modern life

(2) Multiplication of number of subjects needing government regulation; and

(3) Increased difficulty of administering laws [Pangasinan Transportation v. Public Service

Commission, G.R. No. L-47065 (1940)]

b. Why are administrative agencies needed?

(1) Government lacks time;

(2) Expertise; and,

(3) Organizational aptitude for effective and continuing regulation of new developments in
society
SOURCES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

1. Constitutional or statutory enactments creating administrative bodies;

2. Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of administrative bodies;

3. Rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies in pursuance of the purposes for
which they are created; and

4. Determination and orders of the administrative bodies in the settlement of controversies

arising in their respective fields.

SCOPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

1. The law which fixes the administrative organization and structure of the government;

2. The law, the execution and enforcement of which is entrusted to administrative bodies;

3. The law which governs public officers including their competence, rights, duties,
liabilities, election, etc.;

4. The law which creates administrative agencies, defines their powers and functions,
prescribes their procedures, including the adjudication or settlement by them of contested matters
involving private interests;

5. The law which provides the remedies administrative or judicial, available to those
aggrieved by administrative actions or decisions;

6. The law which governs judicial review of, or relief against, administrative actions or
decisions;

7. The rules, regulations, orders and decisions made by administrative authorities; and

8. The body of judicial decisions and doctrines dealing with any of the above.

WHAT IS ADMINISTRATION?
Administration is an activity of the executive officer of the government. The government
administers when it appoints an officer, instructs its diplomatic agents, assesses and collects its
taxes, drills its army, investigates a case of the commission of crime and executed the judgment of
court. Whenever we see the government in action as opposed to deliberation or the rendering of a
judicial decision, there we say is administration. Administration is thus to be found in all the
manifestation of executive action (Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law)
ASPECTS OF ADMINISTRATION

Administration as an Institution

refers to the aggregate of individuals in whose hands the reins of government are for the
time being.

Administration as a Function

is the actual running of the government by the executive authorities through the
enforcement of laws and implementation of policies.

Two Aspects of Administration as a Function

1. Internal Administration- it covers rules defining the relations of public functionaries inter
se and embraces the whole range of the law of public officers.
2. External administration- it defines the relations of the public office with the public
in general.

CLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

1. As to its Source

a. The law that controls administrative authorities; and

b. The law made by administrative authorities.

2. As to its Purpose

a. Adjective or procedural administrative law; and

b. Substantive administrative law.

3.As to its Applicability

a. General administrative law; and

b. Special or particular administrative law

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

"Agency" includes any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of

the National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant
rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to licensing functions;
government corporations with respect to functions regulating private right, privileges, occupation
or business; and officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law. [Sec. 2(1),
Book VII, Admin Code.]
Administrative agencies are the organs of government, other than a court and other than
the legislature, which affect the rights of private parties either through adjudication or through
rule-making [NACHURA].

Administrative agency is the term used generally to describe an agency exercising some
significant combination of executive, legislative, and judicial powers. It is a government body
charged with administering and implementing particular legislation [DE LEON].
Care must be taken, however, in distinguishing between the quasi-legislative and quasi-
judicial sets of powers and the purely administrative powers. In contrast to rule-making and
adjudication, purely administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and
enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. [Romeo Jalosjos v. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 205033, (2013)]

MANNER OF CREATION

a. Agencies of Constitutional Origin

- those created by the 1987 Constitution (e.g. CSC, COMELEC, COA, CHR)

b. Agencies Created by Statutes

- (e.g. NLRC, SEC, PRC, Social Security Commission, Bureau of Immigration,
Intellectual Property Office, Games and Amusement Board, Energy Regulatory
Commission, and Insurance Commission)

c. Executive Orders/Authorities of law

- (e.g. Fact-finding Agencies)

WHEN IS AN AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE?

Where its function is primarily regulatory EVEN IF it conducts hearings and determines
controversies to carry out its regulatory duty. The ever-increasing variety of powers and functions
given to administrative agencies recognizes the need for the active intervention of administrative
agencies in matters calling for technical knowledge and speed in countless controversies which
cannot possibly be handled by regular courts. [The Honorable Monetary Board v. Philippine
Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 189571, (2015)]

On its rule-making authority, it is administrative when it does not have the discretion to
determine what the law shall be but merely prescribes details for the enforcement of the law.

KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

1. Administrative bodies for regulation under police power
Examples:
 Commission on Immigration and Deportation
 Securities and Exchange Commission
 Professional Regulation Commission
  Bureau of Food and Drug
 Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
 Board of Food Inspectors
 Monetary Board
 Land Transportation Office
2. Administrative bodies for regulation of public utilities
Examples:

 Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board

 National Telecommunications Commission
 Board of Energy
 National Water and Resources Council
 Civil Aeronautics Board
 Board of Marine Inquiry
3. Administrative bodies to carry on governmental functions
Examples:
 Bureau of Internal Revenue
 Bureau of Customs
 Civil Service Commission
 Board of Special Inquiry
 Bureau of Lands
 Land Registration Authority
4. Administrative bodies that adjudicate and decide industrial controversies
Examples:

 National Labor Relations Commission

 Philippine Overseas Employment Adjudication Office
 Human Settlement Regulatory Commission or the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board
5. Administrative bodies making the government a private party
Examples:

 Commission on Audit
 Social Security System Adjudication Office

6. Administrative bodies that grant privileges

Examples:

 Philippines Veterans Affairs Office

 Board of Pardons and Parole
 Bureau of Lands
 Land Transportation and Franchising Regulatory Board
CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

 The President's Executive Power

The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. [Sec. 1, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution]. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus,
and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. [Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution]
Control is the power of an officer 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 for test of the latter

Supervision is overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate

officers perform their duties [Ganzon v. C.A., G.R. No. 93252, (1991)]

 Congressional Oversight Power

Congress uses its oversight power to make sure that the administrative agencies perform
their functions within the authority delegated to them.

There are three categories of congressional oversight functions, namely:

1. Scrutiny - passive process of looking at readily available facts; Congress may request
information and report from the other branches of government. It can give recommendations or
pass resolutions for consideration of the agency involved.

2. Investigation - involves a more intense digging of facts. The power of Congress to

conduct investigation is recognized by the 1987 Constitution in that the Senate or the House of
Representatives or any of its respective committee may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

3. Supervision - connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of a

congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. It allows
Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-making authority, and permits Congress to
retain part of that delegated authority [Macalintal v. Comelec, G.R. No. 157013, (2003)].

 Judicial Review
Courts can provide immediate relief and also they defer to experts. If the law is silent, it
does not mean that there is no judicial review. For questions of policy, the court will not interfere
with the decisions of administrative agencies. For questions of discretion, the courts will also
generally not interfere unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

 The Ombudsman
The Office of the Ombudsman has the power to "investigate and prosecute on its own or
on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or
agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." This
power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a
public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or
connected with, or arise from the performance of his official duty. It is enough that the act or
omission was committed by a public official [Lastimosa v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 116801, (1995)].

POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

1. Quasi-legislative Powers (Rule-Making)

2. Quasi-judicial Powers (Adjudicatory)
3. Determinative Powers
4. Fact-finding, Investigative, Licensing, and Rate-fixing Powers

1. DETERMINATIVE POWERS

Determinative power (in the context of Administrative Law) defined.

It is the authority necessary to effectively carry out the express powers (executive, quasi-
legislative, and quasi-judicial). Often referred to as incidental power, it is the use of enabling,
directing, dispensing, examining, and prosecuting functions.

Determinative functions enumerated.

The incidental or determinative functions of administrative agencies are:

 Licensing or enabling - the function to permit or allow something which the law undertakes
to regulate. The chief application of this power is of course, in the granting or denial of
licenses to engage in a particular business or occupation. It is simply the issuance of license.
Examples:
 Power of the Board of Transportation to issue certificates of public convenience or
necessity
 Power of SEC to permit the issuance of securities
 Powers of Philippine Patent Office to issue patents and copyrights, and register
trademarks and trade names
 Power of Central Bank to license banks

 Directing - the function to determine, assess, valuate and classify for corrective purposes and
compliance with the law. These are exercised when, for instance the BIR performs an
assessment. These include the powers of abstract determination – such as definition,
valuation, classification and fact finding – and dispensing, examining and summary powers.
Illustrated by:
 Corrective powers of Public Utility Commissions
 Powers of assessment under the revenue and assessment laws
  Reparations under Public Utility Laws
 Awards under the workmen’s compensation laws

 Dispensing - the function to exempt one from or relax a general prohibition, or to relieve a
person or entity from an affirmative duty. It refers to the authority to:
Exempt from or relax a general prohibition; example, authority of zoning boards to vary the
provisions of a zoning statute or ordinance
- OR -
Relieve from an affirmative duty; example, authority of Public Service commission to permit the
abandonment of service by carriers

 Examining or investigation - the function to require the attendance of witnesses or the

production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon request of any party
before or during a hearing. Although calling of witnesses isn't inherent in an administrative
body, administrative officers can summon witnesses, administer oaths, etc. An
administrative body can't punish non-compliance with contempt unless the law allows it.
It is simply the issuance of subpoena. It is also called inquisitorial powers. Powers which
include the power to inspect or to secure or to require the disclosure of information by
means or accounts, records or otherwise. Powers included in the investigatory or
inquisitorial powers are:
(1) Subpoena
(2) Swearing of Witnesses
(3) Interrogating Witnesses
(4) Calling for Production of books, papers and records
(5) Requiring that books, papers and records be made available for inspection
(6) Inspection of premises
(7) Requiring written answers to questionnaires
(8) Requiring reports, periodic or special
(9) Requiring of filing of Statements

 Prosecuting or summary - the power to apply compulsion or force against person or

property to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such action,
e.g. as in abating nuisances. These powers are exemplified by the authority of admin
agencies in the fields of health, banking, agriculture, animals, aliens, game laws, building
regulations, licenses, nuisances, schools, taxation and other fields. In the absence of a
statutory grant of power, admin authorities MAY NOT themselves enforce their
determinations, at least not by direct and positive action. Example: Collector under the
NIRC may resort to the summary proceedings of distraint and levy for the collection of
taxes.
 2. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER

Quasi-legislative power or the Rule-making power is the authority delegated by the law-
making body to the administrative agency to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the
provisions of a law and implement a legislative policy. It is the power to make rules and regulations
that results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the
doctrine of the non-delegability and separability of powers.

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of People v. Maceren (G.R. No. 32166):

“The grant of rule-making is a relaxation of the separation of powers principle and is an

exception to the non-delegation of legislative powers. But such administrative regulations
must be consistent with the law and be for the sole purpose of enforcing its provisions and
not to transcend the limits marked by law. xxx The details and the manner of carrying out
the law are often times left to the administrative agency entrusted with its enforcement.”

Moreover, in Abakada Guro Partylist v. Hon. Cesar Purisima (G.R. No. 166715), the Court
ruled to wit:

“Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret

the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to respect.
Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if
they have been written in the statute itself. As such, they have the force and effect of law
and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with
finality in an appropriate case by a competent court. Congress, in the guise of assuming the
role of an overseer, may not pass upon their legality by subjecting them to its stamp of
approval without disturbing the calculated balance of powers established in the
Constitution. Hence, legislative vetoes are unconstitutional.”

Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation – Power to promulgate rules and regulations is only limited
to carrying into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment.

Administrative issuances may be distinguished according to their nature and substance:

Legislative and Interpretative.

a. A legislative rule - is in the matter of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a

primary legislation by providing the details thereof.

b. An interpretative rule - is designed to provide guidelines to the law which the

administrative agency is in charge of enforcing.

Non-Delegation Doctrine – Potestas delegata non delegare potest. What has been delegated cannot
be delegated.

The general rule barring delegation of legislative powers is subject to the following
recognized limitations or exceptions:
 a. Delegation of tariff powers to the President [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution];

b. Delegation of emergency powers to the President [Sec. 23 (2), Art. VI, 1987
Constitution];

c. Delegation to the people at large;

d. Delegation to local governments; and

e. Delegation to administrative bodies [Abakada v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056 (2005)]

Permissible Delegation

a. Ascertainment of Facts

A statute may give to non-judicial officers:

1. The power to declare the existence of facts which call into operation the statute's
provisions; and,

2. May grant to commissioners and other subordinate officers the power to ascertain and
determine appropriate facts as a basis for procedure in the enforcement of particular laws. Such
functions are merely incidental to the exercise of power granted by law to clear navigable streams
of unauthorized obstructions. They can be conferred upon executive officials provided the party
affected is given the opportunity to be heard [Lovina v. Moreno, G.R. No. L-17821 (1963)].

b. Filling-in the Details

c. General Rule-Making Power

General Rules:

1. Every administrative agency is to file with the University of the Philippines Law Center
three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it.

2. Each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above
provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger
to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement
accompanying the rule.

3. Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which, pursuant to law, is

punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full text.

4. If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or

circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their
views prior to the adoption of any rule.
 5. In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall
have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first
hearing thereon.

Requisites for a Valid Delegation

1. Completeness Test – The law must be complete in itself and must set forth the policy to be
executed. A statute is incomplete if it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the
administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise of discretionary powers delegated to
it [People v. Vera, G.R. No. L-45685 (1937)]. The law must be complete in all its terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches thedelegate the only thing he
will have to do is enforce it. [Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. POEA, G.R. No. 76633 (1988)] To
determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power, the inquiry must be
directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its
functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his
authority [Edu v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-32096 (1970)]; and

2. Sufficient Standards Test – The law must fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate or determinable, to which the delegate must conform [Abakada v. Ermita, G.R. No.
168056 (2005)]. The legislature may delegate to executive officers or bodies the power to
determine certain facts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on which the operation
of a statute is, by its terms, made to depend, but the legislature must prescribe sufficient standards,
policies or limitations on their authority

Sufficient standard defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries
and specifies the public agency to apply it, and it indicates the circumstances under which the
legislative command is to be effected [Santiago v. COMELEC, G.R. 127325 (1997); Abakada v.
Ermita, supra].

Forms of a sufficient standard:

1. Express;

2. Implied [Edu v. Ericta, G.R. No. L32096 (1970)]; or

3. Embodied in other statutes on the same matter and not necessarily in the same
law being challenged [Chiongbian v. Orbos, G.R. No. 96754 (1995)].

A. Kinds of Administrative Rules and Regulations

1. Supplementary legislation – pertains to rules and regulations that fix details in the execution
of a policy in the law, e.g. IRRs of the Labor Code. This is also called a legislative rule or
subordinate legislation.
2. Interpretative legislation – pertains to rules and regulations construing or interpreting the
provisions of a statute to be enforced and they are binding on all concerned until they are changed,
e.g. BIR Circulars.

3. Contingent legislation- they are rules and regulations made by an administrative authority on
the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law depends.

Legislative Rules Interpretative Rules

As a Source Promulgated pursuant to its quasi- Promulgated pursuant to its quasi-judicial
legislative/rule-making functions. capacity.
As to Create a new law, a new policy, Merely clarify the meaning of a preexisting
Function with the force and effect of law. law by inferring its implications.
As to Need publication. Need not be published.
Publication
As to Binding So long as the court finds that the At best merely advisory; the court may
Effect legislative rules are within the review the correctness of the interpretation
power of the administrative agency of the law given by the administrative body,
to pass, as seen in the primary law, and substitute its own view of what is
then the rules bind the court. The correct. If it is not within the scope of the
court cannot question the wisdom administrative agency, the court may, in
or correctness of the policy addition to invalidating the same, also
contained in the rules. substitute its decision or interpretation or
give its own set of rules.

As to Due Procedural due process means that Due process involves whether the parties
Process the body observed the proper were afforded the opportunity to be notified
procedure in passing rules. and heard before the issuance of the ruling.
Substantive due process, on the
other hand, deals with the
limitations posed by constitutional
and fundamental rights to rule-
making.

Administrative construction is not necessarily binding upon the courts. An 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. [Peralta v. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. 95832 (1992)].
Notice and Hearing

1. In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions - As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the
fundamental requirements of procedural due process, are essential only when an administrative
body exercises its quasi-judicial function.

2. In the exercise of quasi-legislative functions - In the performance of its executive or legislative

functions, such as issuing rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the
requirements of notice and hearing [Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 111953 (1997), citing PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz, G.R. No. 84818 (1989)]. The
requirements of due process are presumably satisfied by the notice, comment, and public hearing
procedures to be complied with by agencies in the issuance of legislative rules. Can the power to
hear and decide a case be delegated?

The rule that requires an administrative officer to exercise his own judgment and discretion
does not preclude him from utilizing, as a matter of practical administrative procedure, the aid of
subordinates to investigate and report to him the facts, on the basis of which the officer will make
his decisions. There is no abnegation of responsibility by the officer if his subordinates heard the
case as the decision remains with and is made by the officer. [American Tobacco Co. v. Director
of Patents, G.R. No. L-26803 (1975)]

3. In the issuance of interpretative rulings - 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, upon the other hand, the
administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least
cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden of
those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to 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 [Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CA, G.R. No. 119761 (1996)].

Restrictions on Interpretative Regulations

1. Does not change the character of a ministerial duty.

2. Does not involve unlawful use of legislative or judicial power.

3. May eliminate construction and uncertainty in doubtful cases. When laws are susceptible of two
or more interpretations, the administrative agency should make known its official position.

4. Administrative construction/interpretation not binding on the court as to the proper construction

of a statute, but generally it is given great weight, has a very persuasive influence and may actually
be regarded by the courts as the controlling factor. [Lim Hoa Ting vs. Central Bank of the
Philippines, G.R. No. L- 10666 (1958)].

5. Administrative interpretation is merely advisory; courts finally determine what the law means
[Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. 16704 (1962)].
6. Contingent legislation – Pertains to rules and regulations made by an administrative authority
on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law depends.

B. Requisites for Validity of Administrative Regulation

Requisites of a valid administrative rule:

1. Within the scope or authority of law;

2. Authorized by law;

3. Reasonable - If shown to bear no reasonable relation to the purposes [using the means-
purpose or rational relation test] for which they are authorized to be issued, then they must be held
to be invalid [Lupangco v. CA, G.R. No. 77372 (1988)];

4. Promulgated in accordance with prescribed procedure

Tests to Determine Invalidity of Rules

1. If it exceeds the authority conferred to it;

2. If it conflicts with the governing statute;

3. If it extends or modifies the statute;

4. If it has no reasonable relationship to the statutory purpose; and

5. If it is arbitrary or unreasonable or unconstitutional.

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 the 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 [Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Defensor, G.R. No.
163980 (2006)].

Rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceedings in
order to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted, and it cannot be extended to amend or
expand the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.

Administrative regulations must always be in harmony with the provisions of the law
because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be resolved in favor of the basic
law [Commissioner v. Fortune Tobacco, G.R. Nos. 167274-75 (2008)].

Accordingly, as the constitutional body specifically charged with the enforcement and
administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall, the COMELEC should be given sufficient leeway in accounting
for the exigencies of the upcoming elections.
 In fine, its measures therefor should be respected, unless it is clearly shown that the same
are devoid of any reasonable justification. [Kabataan Party-list v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221318
(2015)].

The function of promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised only for
the purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into effect. The power of administrative agencies
is thus confined to implementing the law or putting it into effect. Corollary to this is that
administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment. [Land Bank
of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118712, (1995)].

Rules on Publication

1. Administrative rules and regulations are subject to the publication and effectivity rules
of the Administrative Code.

2. Publication Requirement: E.O. 200 (Art. 2, Civil Code) requires publication of laws in
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. Publication is indispensable,
especially if the rule is general.

Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide
that the usual 15-day period shall be shortened or extended. Publication must be in full or it is no
publication at all, since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the law. [Tañada v.
Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 (1986)]

 Publication is mandatory for the following to be effective:

1. Laws not only of general application, but also laws of local application, private laws;

2. Presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise
of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present,
directly conferred by the Constitution;

3. Administrative rules and regulations enforcing or implementing existing law pursuant

also to a valid delegation;

4. City charters; and,

5. Circulars issued by the Monetary Board not merely interpreting but "filling in the
details" of the Central Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce.

 Publication is not necessary for the following to be effective:

1. Interpretative regulations;

2. Regulations which are merely internal in nature (regulating only the personnel of the
administrative agency need not the published);
 3. Letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or
guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties;

4. Internal instructions issued by an administrative agency; and

5. Municipal ordinances which are governed by the Local Government Code [Tañada v.
Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 (1986)]

Filing Requirement

Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified
copes of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of the effectivity of this Code which
are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction
against any party or persons. [Sec. 3, Chapter 1, Book VII, Admin. Code]

The Administrative Code of 1987, particularly Section 3 of Book VII 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, G.R. No. 148579 (2007)].

Not all rules and regulations adopted by every government agency are to be filed with the
UP Law Center. Only those of general or of permanent character are to be filed. According to the
UP Law Center’s guidelines for receiving and publication of rules and regulations, “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 filed with the UP Law Center. [Board of
Trustees v. Velasco, G.R. No. 170463 (2011)]. Effectivity: 15 days after filing and publication

Effectivity

In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this
Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above provided
unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public
health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying
the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons
who may be affected by them. [Sec. 4, Chapter 1, Book, VII, Admin. Code]

These requirements of publication and filing were put in place as safeguards against abuses
on the part of lawmakers and as guarantees to the constitutional right to due process and to
information on matters of public concern and, therefore, require strict compliance. Failure to
comply with the requirements of publication and filing of administrative issuances renders said
issuances ineffective [Republic v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum, G.R. No. 173918 (2008)].

Exceptions

1. Different date is fixed by law or specified in the rule; and

2. In case of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare.

Penal Rules

Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which, pursuant to law is punishable
as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full text. [Sec. 6, Chapter 1,
Book VII, Admin. Code]

General Rule: Rules must not provide penal sanctions.

Exception: A violation or infringement of a rule or regulation validly issued can constitute a crime
punishable as provided in the authorizing statute and by virtue of the latter [People v. Maceren,
G.R. No. L- 32166 (1977)].

For an administrative regulation to have the force of penal law:

1. The violation of the administrative regulation must be made a crime by the delegating
statute itself; and

2. The penalty for such violation must be provided by the statute itself [Perez v. LPG
Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 159149 (2006), citing U.S. v. Panlilio, G.R.
No. L-9876 (1914)]. Penal laws and regulations imposing penalties must be published before it
takes effect [People v. Que Po Lay, G.R. No. 6791 (1954)].

Power to Amend, Revise, Alter or Repeal Rules.

Following the doctrine of necessary implication, the grant of express power to formulate
implementing rules and regulations must necessarily include the power to amend, revise, alter, or
repeal the same [Yazaki Torres Manufacturing, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 130584 (2006)].

3. QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS

It is the power of an administrative agency to hear and determine, or to ascertain facts and
decide by application of rules to the ascertained facts.

Distinguish Administrative Proceedings from Judicial Proceedings

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL

Nature of Proceedings Inquisitorial Adversarial

Rules of Procedure Liberally applied but subject Follow technical rules in the
to Ang Tibay requirements Rules of Court
Nature and Extent of Decision Decision generally limited to Decision includes matter
matters of general concern, but brought as issue by the parties
also resolves the issues raised
by the parties in a specific
dispute
Parties The agency itself may be a Only the private parties
party to the proceedings before
it
Distinctions between Adjudicatory Power and Investigative Power

The purpose of an investigation is to discover, find out, learn, or obtain information. The
purpose of adjudication is to settle, decide or resolve controversies in the facts inquired into by
application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry.

Distinctions between Adjudicatory Power and Legislative Power

Quasi-judicial action involves enforcement of liabilities as they stand on present or past

fact and under laws supposed to exits, while quasi-legislation looks to the future and changes
existing conditions by making new rule to be applied prospectively.

Adjudication applies to named persons or to specific situations while the legislation lays
down general regulations that apply to classes of persons of situations.

Requisites for The Valid Exercise of Adjudicatory Power

1. Jurisdiction
2. Due Process

Powers included in Quasi-Judicial Functions

1. Subpoena Power - [Sec. 13, Chapter 1, Book VII, Administrative Code]

In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of
witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon request of
any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance. 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. [Sec. 13, Chapter 1, Book VII, Admin. Code]
Administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations,
whether or not adjudication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even
before the issuance of a complaint. The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence, not to
prove a pending charge. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an
administrative body, it, too may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation
of the law. A subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is: (1) within the
authority of the agency; (2) the demand is not too indefinite; and (3) the information is reasonably
relevant [Evangelista v. Jarencio, G.R. No. L29274, (1975)].

2. Contempt Power
General Rule: Exercised through the order and assistance of RTC.
Exception: When the law gives agency contempt power. The exercise of this power [to
punish for contempt] has always been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of courts. Its
exercise by administrative bodies has been invariably limited to making effective the power to
elicit testimony, and the exercise of that power by an administrative body in furtherance of its
administrative function has been held invalid [Guevara v. Comelec, G.R. No. L12596, (1958)].
 3. Power to issue Search Warrant or Warrant of Arrest
General Rule: Only judges may issue.
Under the express terms of our Constitution, it is doubtful whether the arrest of an
individual may be ordered by any authority other than the judge if the purpose is merely to
determine the existence of a probable cause, leading to an administrative investigation. [Qua Chee
Gan v. Deportation Board, G.R. No. L-10280 (1963), decided under the 1935 Constitution. Note
that the 1987 and 1935 Constitutions are the same in limiting the issuance of warrants of arrest to
a judge.] Under Article III, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution, only judges, and no other, may
issue warrants of arrest and search.
The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the
President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of
deportation, for the purpose of deportation [Salazar v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510 (1990)]. Board
of Commissioners v. De La Rosa [G.R. Nos. 95122 (1991)] reiterates the rule that for a warrant of
arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration to be valid, it must be for the sole purpose of
executing a final order of deportation. A warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of
Immigration for purposes of investigation only is null and void for being unconstitutional.
Exception: A warrant may be issued by the administrative agency following a final order.
It is different if the order of arrest is issued to carry out a final finding of a violation, either by an
executive or legislative officer or agency duly authorized for the purpose, as then the warrant is
not that mentioned in the Constitution which is issuable only on probable cause. Such for example,
would be a warrant of arrest to carry out a final order of deportation, or to effect compliance of an
order of contempt [Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board, G.R. No. L-10280 (1963)].

Note: In Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago [G.R. No. L-82544 (1988)], there was no final order of
deportation. The executive officials were the ones who made a finding of probable cause, not the
judge. As such, this case seems to carve out another exception (in addition to warrant of arrest to
enforce an order of deportation) - upon showing of probable cause and the filing of a charge.

A. Administrative Due Process

While administrative agencies are free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, they
cannot entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in
trials and investigations of an administrative character [Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L-46496
(1940)].

Effect of Decisions Rendered without Due Process

A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at any time
directly or collaterally by means of a separate action or proceeding where it is invoked [Garcia v.
Molina, G.R. No. 157383 (2010)].

Due process as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial
type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and
given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. The essence of due process is simply to be
heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. [NAPOLCOM
National Appellate Board v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 129914, (2000)].

Cardinal Primary Rights (Ang Tibay v. CIR [G.R. No. L-46496]

1. Right to a hearing (includes the right of a party to preset his own case and submit evidence
in support thereof)
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. Decision must be supported by evidence
4. Evidence must be substantial
5. 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 judge must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy
7. Decision must be rendered in such a manner as to let the parties know the various issues
involved and the reasons for the decisions rendered.

What due process includes in Administrative Proceedings

1. The right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect
a respondent’s legal rights;
2. A real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present
witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights;
3. A tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person
charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality;
4. A finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for
consideration during the hearing or contained in the record or made known to the parties.

Due process is violated when:

1. There is failure to sufficiently explain the reason for the decision rendered
2. If not supported by substantial evidence
3. Imputation of a violation and imposition of fine despite absence of due notice and hearing

Notice and Hearing

 When required:
1. When the law specifically requires it
2. When it affects a person’s status and liberty

 When not required:

1. When there is urgent need for immediate action
2. When there is tentativeness of administrative action
3. When notice and hearing have been proferred, but the right to exercise them have not been
claimed
 4. Discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact
5. If it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse
6. When it involves rules to govern future conduct of person or enterprises, unless law
provides otherwise
7. In the valid exercise of police power.

Required Notice and Hearing under the Administrative Code

 Contested cases
 Insofar as practicable, to certain licensing procedures, involving grant, renewal, denial or
cancellation of a license
 All licensing procedures, when a license is withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled

Exceptions

o Willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and regulations or

o When public security, health, or safety requires otherwise

B. Administrative Appeal and Review

Different kinds of administrative appeal and review

1. That which inheres in the relation of administrative superior to administrative subordinate

where determinations are made at lower levels of the same administrative system
2. That embraced in statutes which provide for a determination to be made by a particular
officer of body subject to appeal, review, or redetermination by another officer or body in
the same agency or same administrative system
3. That in which the statute attempts to make a court a part of the administrative scheme by
providing in terms or effect that the court, on review of the action of an administrative
agency, shall exercise powers of such extent that they differ from ordinary judicial
functions and involve a trial de novo of matters on fact or discretion and application of the
independent judgment of the court
4. That in which the statute provides that an order made by a division of a Commission or
Board has the same force and effect as if made by the Commission subject to a rehearing
by the full Commission, for the ‘rehearing’ is practically an appeal to another
administrative tribunal
5. That in which the statute provides for an appeal to an officer on an intermediate level with
subsequent appeal to the head of the department or agency
6. That embraced in statutes which provide for appeal at the highest level, namely, the
president.
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

The doctrine of qualified political agency or alter ego principle means that the acts of the
secretaries of the Executive departments performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.

C. Administrative Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not
to exercise of purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and
summary in naure.

When it applies

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not
to the exercise of purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious
and summary in nature; hence, res judicata does not apply [Nasipit Lumber Co. v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 54424 (1989)].

Requisites

1. The former judgment must be final;

2. It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties;

3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and

4. There must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action [Ipekdijan
Merchandising v. CTA, G.R. No. L-14791 (1963)].

Res judicata embraces two concepts:

1. Bar by prior judgment: exists “when, as between the first case where the judgment was
rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred.” there is identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action.

2. Conclusiveness of judgment: exists when “a fact or question has been squarely put in issue,
judicially passed upon, and adjudged in former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction.” This
principle only needs identity of parties and issues to apply. [Emerald Garment Manufacturing
Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 100098 (1995)].

While it is true that this Court has declared that the doctrine of res judicata applies only to
judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of administrative powers, we have
also limited the latter to proceedings purely administrative in nature. Therefore, when the
administrative proceedings take on an adversary character, the doctrine of res judicata certainly
applies [Heirs of Maximino Derla v. Heirs of Catalina Derla Vda. De Hipolito, G.R. No. 157717
(2011)].
Effect

Decisions and orders of administrative bodies rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial

authority have, upon their finality, the force and effect of a final judgment within the purview of
the doctrine of res judicata, which forbids the reopening of matters once judicially determined by
competent authorities.

General Rule:

Res judicata does not apply in administrative adjudication relative to citizenship.

Exception:

For res judicata to be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present:

1. A person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said

person is a party;

2. The Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution
thereof; and,

3. The finding or citizenship is affirmed by SC [Board of Commissioners v. De la Rosa,

G.R. Nos. 95122 (1991)].

Res judicata may not be invoked in labor relations proceedings because they are
nonlitigious and summary in nature [Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 54424 (1989)].

Due to the difference between the quantum of evidence, procedure, and sanctions imposed
in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not
necessarily be binding on the other [Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No.114683
(2000)].

The basis of administrative liability differs from criminal liability. The purpose of
administrative proceedings is mainly to protect the public service, based on the time-honored
principle that a public office is a public trust. On the other hand, the purpose of the criminal
prosecution is the punishment of crime [Ferrer v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 161067 (2008)].

Forum Shopping

There is forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party
seeks a favorable opinion in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in
the courts but also in connection with litigation commenced in the courts while ad administrative
proceeding is pending.
 4. FACT-FINDING, INVESTIGATIVE, LICENSING, AND RATE-FIXING
POWERS

A. Ascertainment of Fact

A statute may give to non-judicial officers:

1. The power to declare the existence of facts which call into operation the statute’s
provisions, and
2. May grant to commissioners and other subordinate officers the power to ascertain and
determine appropriate facts as a basis for procedure in the enforcement of particular laws.

Such functions are merely incidental to the exercise of power granted by law to clear
navigable streams of unauthorized obstructions. They can be conferred upon executive officials
provided the party affected is given the opportunity to be heard [Lovina v. Moreno, G.R. No. L-
17821 (1963)].

B. Investigative Powers

Administrative agencies’ power to conduct investigations and hearings, and make findings
and recommendations thereon is inherent in their functions as administrative agencies.

General Rule: Findings of fact by administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have
acquired expertise because of their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally
accorded not only great respect but even finality, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion
[Marlow Navigation Philippines Inc. vs. Heirs of Ricardo S. Ganal, G.R. No. 220168 (2017)].

Exception: Equally settled that one of the exceptions to the above rule is when the factual findings
of the quasi-judicial agencies concerned are conflicting or contrary with those of the CA.

"Investigate" means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study.
The purpose of investigation is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere
included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the
facts inquired into by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry [Cariño v. CHR,
G.R. No. 96681 (1991)].

C. Licensing Function

Licensing

The action of an administrative agency in granting or denying, or in suspecting or revoking,

a license, permit, franchise or certificate of public convenience and necessity.

When are notice and hearing required in licensing?

Only if it is a contested case. Otherwise, it can be dispensed with (e.g., driver’s licenses)
[Sec. 2, Chapter 1, Book VII, Admin. Code].

A license or permit is not a contract between the sovereignty and the licensee. Rather, it is
a special privilege, a permission or authority to do what is within its terms. It is always revocable.
The absence of an expiry date in a license does not make it perpetual. Notwithstanding that
absence, the license cannot last beyond the life of the basic authority under which it was issued
[Gonzalo Sy Trading v. Central Bank, G.R. No. L-41480 (1976)].
Note: The Administrative Code, however, prescribes notice and hearing before it can be revoked,
subject to certain exceptions

D. Fixing of Rates, Wages, and Prices

“Rate” means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms,
including individual or joint rates, tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as well as
communication, mileage, kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law or
regulation to be observed and followed by a person [Sec. 2, Chapter 1, Book VII, Admin. Code].

Rate-fixing power

It is the power usually delegated by the legislature to administrative agencies for the latter
to fix the rates which public utility companies may charge the public.

Note: The power to fix rates is essentially legislative but may be delegated. (Philippine Inter-
Island v. CA, G.R. No. 100481, January 22, 1997)

The legislature may directly provide for these rates, wages, or prices. But while the
legislature may deal directly with these subjects, it has been found more advantageous to place the
performance of these functions in some administrative agency. The need for dispatch, for
flexibility and technical know-how is better met by entrusting the rate-fixing to an agency other
than the legislature itself. (Cortes, 1963)

Rate-fixing procedure

The administrative agencies perform this function either by issuing rules and regulations
in the exercise of their quasi-legislative power or by issuing orders affecting a specified person in
the exercise of its quasi-judicial power.

Note: In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have
been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks before the first hearing
thereon. [1987 Administrative Code, Administrative Procedure,Sec. 9(2)] (2000, 2009 Bar)

Requirements for the delegation of the power to ascertain facts to be valid

The law delegating the power to determine some facts or state of things upon which the
law may take effect or its operation suspended must provide the standard, fix the limits within
which the discretion may be exercised, and define the conditions therefor. Absent these
requirements, the law and the rules issued thereunder are void, the former being an undue
delegation of legislative power and the latter being the exercise of rule- making without legal basis.
(U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, G.R. No. L-17122, February 27, 1992)

Standard required on delegated power to fix rates

It is required that the rate be reasonable and just. (American Tobacco Co. v. Director of
Patents, G.R. No. L-26803, October 14, 1975)

In any case, the rates must both be non-confiscatory and must have been established in the
manner prescribed by the legislature. Even in the absence of an express requirement as to
reasonableness, this standard may be implied. A rate-fixing order, though temporary or provisional
it may be, is not exempt from the procedural requirements of notice and hearing when prescribed
by statute, as well as the requirement of reasonableness. (Philippine Communications Satellite
Corporation v. NTC, G.R. No. 84818, December 18, 1989)
Re-delegating power to fix rates is prohibited

The power delegated to an administrative agency to fix rates cannot, in the absence of a
law authorizing it, be delegated to another. This is expressed in the maxim, potestas delagata non
delegari potest. (Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 115381, December
23, 1994)

POWER TO FIX RATES EXERCISED AS POWER TO FIX RATE EXERCISED AS

A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION A QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION
Rules and/or rates laid down are meant to Rules and the rate imposed apply exclusively
apply to all enterprises. to particular party.

Prior notice and hearing to the affected parties Prior notice and hearing are essential to the
is not a requirement, except where the validity of such rates. But an administrative
legislature itself requires it. agency may be empowered by law to approve
provisionally, when demanded by urgent
public need, rates of public utilities without a
hearing.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

General Rule

Judicial review may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses, except when the
Constitution requires or allows it. Thus, a law may provide that the decision of an administrative
agency shall be final and not reviewable and it would still not offend due process.

However, Sec. 1, par. 2, Art. VIII of the Constitution, provides that judicial review of
administrative decisions cannot be denied the courts when there is an allegation of grave abuse of
discretion [NACHURA].

It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasijudicial or

legislative power, there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies
on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. xxx Judicial
review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or
collusion [San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-39195 (1975), citing Timbancaya v. Vicente,
G.R. No. L-19100 (1963)].

Rationale

The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction
and protect the substantial rights of the parties; It is that part of the checks and balances which
restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications [St. Martin’s
Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866 (1998)].

N.B. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that the Court of Appeals shall have appellate
jurisdiction over awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-
judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
Extent of Judicial Review

1. Questions of Law

a. Constitutionality of the law creating the agency and granting it powers

b. Validity of agency action if these transcend limits established by law

c. Correctness of interpretation or application of the law

2. Questions of Fact

Judicial Review. –

Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. The findings of
fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically
provided otherwise by law [Sec. 25, Chapter 4, Book VII, Admin. Code].

General Rule: Findings of fact by the agency are final when supported by substantial
evidence.

Exceptions

a. Specifically allowed otherwise by law

b. Fraud, imposition, mistake, or other error of judgment in evaluating the evidence

[Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-39919 (1934)]

c. Error in appreciation of pleadings and interpretation of the documentary evidence

presented by the parties [Tan Tiong Teck v. SEC, G.R. No. L-46471 (1940)]

d. Decision of the agency was rendered by an almost divided agency and that the
division was precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence [Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union,
G.R. No. L-2256 (1969)]

3. Question of Discretion

General Rule: Administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by
the courts.

Rationale: Courts have none of the technical and economic or financial competence which
specialized administrative agencies have at their disposal, and in particular must be wary of
intervening in matters which are at their core technical and economic in nature [PLDT v. National
Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 94374 (1995)].

Exceptions

1. When there is a grave abuse of discretion;

2. Where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner [Banco Filipino

Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Monetary Board, G.R. No. 70054 (1991)];

3. If without reasonable support in the evidence;

 4. Rendered against law, or

5. Issued without jurisdiction [Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. Public Service

Commission, G.R. No. 10903 (1957)].

A. Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction

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 [Guy v. Ignacio, G.R. No. 167824 (2010)].
It can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the
administrative agency. It is a question of the court yielding to the agency because of the latter’s
expertise, and does not amount to ouster of the court [Texas & Pacific Railway v. Abilene, 204
U.S. 426 (1907)]
It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which
means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the determination of the
case requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies
because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even
though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court [Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA,
G.R. No. 88550 (1990)].
Administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the
exercise of their adjudicative functions, latitude which includes the authority to take judicial notice
of facts within their special competence [Quiambao v. CA, G.R. No. 128305 (2005)]. The doctrine
of primary jurisdiction applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into
play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory
scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case,
the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its
view [Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, supra].
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself
authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence [Vidad v. RTC, G.R. No. 98084 (1993)].

Rationale
In this era of clogged docket courts, the need for specialized administrative boards with the
special knowledge and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical matters
has become well-nigh indispensable. Between the power lodged in an administrative body and a
court, the unmistakable trend has been to refer it to the former [GMA v. ABS CBN, G.R. No.
160703 (2005)].
Requisites
1. An administrative body and a regular court have concurrent and original jurisdiction
2. Question to be resolved requires expertise of administrative agency
3. Legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in rulings
4. Administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function (not
rulemaking or quasi-legislative function [Smart v. NTC, G.R. No. 151908 (2003)]

Effect
While no prejudicial question strictly arises where one is a civil case and the other is an
administrative proceeding, in the interest of good order, it behooves the court to suspend its action
on the cases before it pending the final outcome of the administrative proceedings [Vidad v. RTC,
supra]. It does not per se have the effect of restraining or preventing the courts from the exercise
of their lawfully conferred jurisdiction. A contrary rule would unduly expand the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction [Conrad and Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 115115 (1995)].
All the proceedings of the court in violation of the doctrine and all orders and decisions
rendered thereby are null and void [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development
Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)].

Note: The court may raise the issue of primary jurisdiction sua sponte and its invocation cannot
be waived by the failure of the parties to argue it as the doctrine exists for the proper distribution
of power between judicial and administrative bodies and not for the convenience of the parties
[Euro-Med Laboratories Phil., Inc. v. Province of Batangas, G.R. No. 148106 (2006)].

When the Doctrine is not Applicable

1. When the issue is not within the competence of the administrative body to act on (e.g.
pure questions of law, over which the expertise is with the courts);
a. Regular courts have jurisdiction in cases 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 [Smart v. NTC, supra]
2. When the issue involved is clearly a factual question that does not require specialized
skills and knowledge for resolution to justify the exercise of primary jurisdiction.

B. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

General Rule
Where the law has delineated the procedure by which administrative appeal or remedy
could be effected, the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated
[Pascual v. Provincial Board, G.R. No. L-11959 (1959)].
One of the reasons for exhaustion of administrative remedies is our well-entrenched
doctrine on separation of powers, which enjoins upon the Judiciary a policy of noninterference
with matters falling primarily (albeit not exclusively) within the competence of other departments.
Courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available
administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities have been given an
appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the
administrative forum [Antolin v. Domondon, G.R. No. 165036 (2010)].

Requisites
a. The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function;
b. Judicial review is available; and
c. The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction.

Rationale
a. Legal reason: The law prescribes a procedure.
b. Practical reason: To ensure that disputes involving technical and specialized matters are
first resolved by the body which has the expertise and competence to resolve them, and, in most
cases, to give the agency a chance to correct its own errors and prevent unnecessary and premature
resort to the courts. It also entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of
controversies.
c. Reasons of comity: Expedience, courtesy, convenience.
d. Separation of powers: enjoins upon the Judiciary a policy of non-interference with
matters falling primarily (albeit not exclusively) within the competence of other departments.

1. Exceptions to the Doctrine

The exceptions may be condensed into three:
1. Grave abuse of discretion;
2. Pure question of law; or
3. No other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

This list has been expanded by case law to include:

1. Purely legal questions [Castro v. Secretary, G.R. No. 132174 (2001)]
2. There is grave doubt as to the availability of the administrative remedy [Pascual v.
Provincial Board, supra]
3. Steps to be taken are merely matters of form. [Pascual v. Provincial Board, supra]
4. Administrative remedy not exclusive but merely cumulative or concurrent to a judicial
remedy. [Pascual v. Provincial Board, supra]
5. There are circumstances indicating urgency of judicial intervention. [DAR v. Apex
Investment, G.R. No. 149422 (2003)]
6. Rule does not provide plain, speedy, adequate remedy. [Information Technology
Foundation v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139 (2004)]
7. Resort to exhaustion will only be oppressive and patently unreasonable. [Cipriano v.
Marcelino, G.R. No. L-27793 (1972)]
8. Where the administrative remedy is only permissive or voluntary and not a prerequisite
to the institution of judicial proceedings. [Corpus v. Cuaderno, Sr., G.R. No. L-17860 (1962)]
9. Application of the doctrine will only cause great and irreparable damage which cannot
be prevented except by taking the appropriate court action. [De Lara, Jr. v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-
21653 (1965)]
10. When it involves the rule-making or quasilegislative functions of an administrative
agency. [Smart v. NTC, supra]
11. Administrative agency is in estoppel. [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra]
12. Doctrine of qualified political agency (respondent is a department secretary whose acts
as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter). [Demaisip
v. CA, G.R. No. L13000 (1959); Pagara v. CA, G.R. No. 96882 (1996)]
13. Subject of controversy is private land in land case proceedings. [Soto v. Jareno, G.R.
No. L-38962 (1986)]
14. Violation of due process [Pagara v. CA, supra]
15. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice
the complainant. [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra]
16. Administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
[DAR v. Apex Investment, supra]
17. Resort to administrative remedy will amount to a nullification of a claim. [Paat v. CA,
G.R. No. 111107 (1997); Alzate v. Aldana, G.R. No. L- 14407 (1960)]
18. No administrative review provided for by law. [Estrada v. CA, G.R. No. 137862
(2004)]
19. Issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot. [included
in the enumeration in Estrada v. CA, supra]
20. When the claim involved is small.
21. When strong public interest is involved.
22. In quo warranto proceedings [included in the enumeration in Lopez v. City of Manila,
G.R. No. 127139 (1999)]
23. Law expressly provides for a different review procedure. [Samahang Magbubukid v.
CA, G.R. No. 103953 (1999)]; and,
24. When there is no express legal provision requiring such administrative step as a
condition precedent to taking action in court. [CSC v. DBM, G.R. No. 158791 (2005)]

2. Effect of Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

A direct action in court without prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, when
required, is premature, warranting its dismissal on a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause
of action.
Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he
should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy
within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer
concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such
remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature
invocation of court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding
of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. [Rosita
Montanez v. Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator et. al., G.R. No. 183142 (2009)].
 Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the
Court’s jurisdiction. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court
can take cognizance of the case and try it [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 112708-09
(1996)].

3. When Appeals to the Office of the President (OP) are Required

A decision or order issued by a department or agency need not be appealed to the Office
of the President when there is a special law that provides for a different mode of appeal. If the law
does not provide for a specific relief, appeals may be taken to the Office of the President [Moran
v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 192957 (2014)].
When OP is not exercising quasi-judicial functions When the OP itself represents a party,
i.e., the Republic, to a contract, it merely exercises a contractual right by cancelling/revoking said
agreement—a purely administrative action which should not be considered quasi-judicial in
nature. Thus, absent the OP's proper exercise of a quasi-judicial function, the CA has no appellate
jurisdiction over the case [Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated
Mines Corp., G.R. No. 202877 (2015)].

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Doctrine of Primary

Administrative Remedies Administrative Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of Appellate Concurrent Original Jurisdiction
Court with Administrative Body
Ground for Non- A condition precedent The court yields to the jurisdiction
exercise of of the administrative agency
Jurisdiction because of its specialized
knowledge or expertise
Court Action Dismiss Suspend Judicial Action
Waivability Waivable Cannot be waived

C. Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action

Courts will not interfere with the act of an administrative agency before it has reached
finality or it has been completed. Once a decision or order becomes final and executory, it thereby
becomes immutable and unalterable and any amendment or alteration which substantially affects
a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire
proceedings held for that purpose [Gagui v. Dejero, G.R. No. 196036 (2013)].

Rationale
Without a final order or decision, the power has not been fully and finally exercised.
Exceptions to the doctrine of finality [Peña v. GSIS, G.R. No. 159520 (2006)]
a. Correction of clerical errors
b. Nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party
c. Void judgments
d. Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its
execution unjust and inequitable

After a judgment has become final, if there is evidence of an event or circumstance which
would affect or change the rights of the parties thereto, the court should be allowed to admit
evidence of such new facts and circumstances, and thereafter suspend execution thereof and grant
relief as the new facts and circumstances warrant [Candelario v. Cañizares, G.R. No. 17688
(1962)].