QUASI –JUDICIAL POWER
CLASSIFICATION OF ADJUDICATORY POWERS – E.D.D.S.E.
BASIC CONCEPTS
Quasi Judicial Power
(Adjudicatory Power)
3 ELEMENTS OF ADJUDICATORY POWERS
I. SPECIFIC PARTIES
2. ADJUDICATION BY PERSON
OTHER THAN A JUDGE
3. ADJUDICATION BY AGENCY
OTHER THAN A COURT
STEPS to the EXERCISE of QUASI – JUDICIAL POWER
FIRST STEP
SECOND STEP
THIRD STEP
Administrative Law 2016
Atty. Gallant Soriano
KIND DEFINITION EXAMPLE
a. power to hear and determine, or ascertain facts
and decide;
b. by application of rules to the ascertained facts.
a. to permit or allow a) grant or denial license (business or
something; occupation);
1. ENABLING
b. which the law b) issuance of securities or certificate of
a. it involves the rights, duties and obligations; undertakes to regulate; public convenience
b. of specific individuals and persons
a. power or function that partakes of the judicial; a. to issue order a) power of assessment or BIR or BOC;
directing parties;
b. but is exercised by a person other than a judge 2. DIRECTING b) reparations under public utility laws;
b. to conform to
governing statutes or c) awards under workmen’s compensation
a. convenient way to justify exercise of judicial power; rules. laws
b. by an administrative agency
a. to exempt from a) Zoning Boards – may vary provisions of
general prohibition; or zoning adherances;
3. DISPENSING b. relieve individual b) Phil. Army Acceptance Board – relieve
from affirmative duty. certain person from military training
a. ascertain facts;
b. from pleadings and from evidence adduced a. to apply compulsion a) abatement of nuisance;
to effectuate legal
4. SUMMARY purpose b) restraint or levy property of delinquent
a. determine what the applicable law is; and taxpayer
b. without judicial
b. what are legal rights of parties warrant
a. Power to make
a. decide controversy; and proper application; a) cease and desist order
5. EQUITABLE b. Of rules of equity
b. render judgment thereon.
 PRINCIPLE No. I Office of Public Prosecutor is not a
quasi- judicial body
PADS TF vs. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
PADS TF (created by PD 1936) – was tasked to investigate and
prosecute “dollar salting activities in the country. State Prosecutor
Jose Rosales of PADS, issued search warrants against Karamfil
Export-Import Co.
Karamfil – went to RTC-Makati to enjoin the implementation of the
search warrants in question. RTC-Makati declared search warrants
to be null and void and ordered to return all personal properties and
documents seized by virtue of said search warrants.
PADS TF – appealed to CA which initially ruled for PADS: that
PADS is special quasi- judicial body and ranks with RTCs and that
RTC had no jurisdiction to declare search warrants null and void.
Upon MR, CA reversed itself. Thus, the resort to SC with PADS
contending that CA erred in not holding that PADS has not been
granted under PD 1936 judicial or quasi – judicial jurisdiction.
HELD:
a) PADS TF was not meant to exercise quasi – judicial functions
(try and decide claims and execute its judgments).
b) As the President’s arm called upon to combat “dollar salting” or
the black marketing and salting of foreign exchange, it is tasked
alone by the Decree to handle the prosecution of such activities, but
nothing more.
Administrative Law 2016
Atty. Gallant Soriano
PRINCIPLE no. 2 A prosecutor is a quasi – judicial officer.
COJUANGCO vs. PCGG
FACTS:
PCGG (as law enforcer) – gathered evidence as to alleged ill-gotten
wealth of Eduardo Cojuangco and, after satisfying itself that there is a
prima facie case, sequestered and issued freeze order for his all properties.
Based also on said finding of prima facie case, PCGG filed civil complaint
against him for alleged ill- gotten wealth including alleged misuse of
coconut levy funds.
Eduardo Cojuangco – went to SC alleging that PCGG may not conduct
premilinary investigation of the complaints filed by Solicitor General without
violating his rights to due process and equal protection of the law, and that
PCGG has no right to conduct such preliminary investigation.
HELD:
a. an indispensable requisite of due process is that the person who
presides and decides over a proceeding, including a preliminary
investigation, must possess the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge.
b. While the investigating officer, strictly speaking is not a “judge” by
the nature of his functions he is and must be considered to be a
quasi-judicial officer.
c. PCGG cannot possibly conduct preliminary investigation of said
criminal complaints with the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge”
as it has prejudged the matter
 JURISPRUDENCE
PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

I. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Smart Communications vs. NTC

Remedies applies only G.R. No. 151908 Aug. 12, 2003
where the act administrative
agency was performed - In questioning the validity of RULE or
PRINCIPLE no. 3 Not every function wherein judgment and discretion
pursuant to its quasi- judicial REGULATION issued by an
are exercised is judicial function
function administrative agency, party need not
exhaust administrative remedies before
SANTIAGO Jr., vs. BAUTISTA going to court. This principle applies only
where the act of administrative agency
FACTS: was performed pursuant to its quasi-
judicial function.
Committee on Rating of Students for Honor - was constituted for the purpose of
selecting “honor students” of its graduating class at Sero Elem. School in Cotabato
City, as school year 1846-1965 was about to end. 2. Jurisdiction to order a Guerzon vs. CA
lessee to vacate leased 164 SCRA 182
Teodoro Santiago Jr. (Grade 6 pupil) – was adjudged by the Committee as 3rd premises is vested in the
honors. Three days prior to graduation, Santiago Jr., represented by his mother, and civil courts in an appropriate - There is nothing in PD 1206 that would
with his father as counsel, sought invalidation of said “ranking” before CFI- Cotabato, case for unlawful detainer or suggest that the same or similar
against committee members for grave abuse of discretion. CFI – Cotabato accion publiciana. jurisdiction has been granted to Bureau of
dismissed case for lack of cause of action. Santiago went to the Supreme Court. Energy Utilization (BEU). BEU’s
jurisdiction is limited to cases involving
violation or non compliance with any term
HELD: or condition of any certificate, license or
permit issued by it or any of its orders,
a. Committee on Rating of Student for Honor exercised neither judicial nor decisions, rules or regulations.
quasi -judicial functions.

b. There is nothing on record about any ruled of law that provides that when
teachers sit down to assess the individual merits of their pupils for purposes 3. Administrative Body may Antipolo Realty vs. NHA
of rating them for honors, such functions involves the determination of what be vested with exclusive 153 SCRA 399
the law is and that they are therefore automatically vested with judicial or original jurisdiction on
quasi-judicial functions. certain disputed falling - Before tribunal, board, or officer may
within its expertise exercise judicial or quasi judicial acts,
c. PCGG cannot possibly conduct preliminary investigation of said criminal there should be a law that gives rise to
complaints with the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge” as it has prejudged some specific rights of persons or
the matter property under which adverse claims to
such rights are made, and the
controversy ensuing therefrom is brought,
before the tribunal, board or officer
clothed with power and authority to
determine what that law is thereupon
Administrative Law 2016
Atty. Gallant Soriano
 adjudicate the respective rights of the
contending parties.
PRINCIPLE no. 4 Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies
only where the act of administrative agency was
performed pursuant to its quasi- judicial functions
SMART COMMUNICATIONS vs. NTC
FACTS:
MC 13-6-2000 (Billing Circular) – issued by NTC, requires: 2 year validity of prepaid
Call and Cards; identification of prepaid card buyers; and call balance announcement.
IslaCom and PILTEL – sought nullity of Circular before RTC-QC alleging that: 1) it is
oppressive, confiscatory and constitutes deprivation of property without due process of
law; 2) that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular
service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call
cards; and that the requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers and call
balance announcement are unreasonable. Globe and Smart intervened.
HELD:
a. In questioning the validity of RULE or REGULATION issued by an
administrative agency, party need not exhaust administrative remedies before
going to court. This principle applies only where the act administrative agency
was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function.
b. Issuance by NTC of Circular was pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making
power. As such, Smart was justified in invoking the judicial power of RTC to
assail validity of said issuances.
Administrative Law 2016
Atty. Gallant Soriano
PRINCIPLE no. 5 Grant of particular power must be found in the law itself.
GUERZON vs. CA
FACTS:
Pedro Guerzon (and Shell) – are parties to “Service Station Lease” for the use of Shell’s
properties, facilities and equipment; and “Dealer’s Sale Contract” for the sale of shell
gasoline and other petroleum products at gasoline station located at Cagayan de Oro
City.
Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) – approved the Dealer’s Sales Contract. Paragraph
9 of Contract – provides “cancellation or termination of Dealer’s Sale’s Contract shall
automatically cancel the lease”.
Guerzon – for his failure of to surrender the leased premises, upon expiration of Dealer
Sale’s Contract, was ordered by BEU to vacate premises. Shell accompanied by law
enforcement authorities secured possession of gasoline station. He filed an action for
injunction but RTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, CA sustained RTC. Guerzon
appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD:
a. Jurisdiction to order lessee to vacate leased premises is vested in civil courts in
unlawful detainer or accion publiciana. Secs. 19(2) and 33(2), BP 129. There is
nothing in PD 1206 that would suggest that the same or similar jurisdiction has
been granted to Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU).
b. BEU’s jurisdiction is limited to cases involving violation or non-compliance with
any term or condition of any certificate, license or permit issued by it or of any of
its orders, decisions, ruled or regulations.
 PRINCIPLE no. 6 Administrative Body may be vested with
exclusive original jurisdiction on certain
disputes falling within its expertise.

ANTIPOLO REALTY vs. NHA

FACTS:

Virgilio Yuson – bought from Jose Hernando a parcel of lot in Ponderosa

Heights, Antipolo, which the latter acquired from Antipolo Realty. For failure
of Antipolo Realty to fully develop the subdivision and introduce
improvements, in accordance with Clause 17 of Contract to Sell, Yuson
stopped monthly installment payments.

Antipolo Realty – rescinded the contract and forfeited all payments made
by Yuson.

Yuson – went to NHA, which ordered reinstatement of the contract.

Antipolo Realty – with the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration, went
to the Supreme Court asserting that jurisdiction over the case was lodged
in the regular courts, not NHA since the complaint involves interpretation
of the Contract to Sell.

HELD:

a. In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which

an administrative agency may exercise is defined in the enabling
act of such agency

b. Under PD 1344, in addition to its powers provided for PD 957, NHA

shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the
following nature: A. Unsound real estate business practices; B.
Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by sub-division
lot or condominium unit buyer against project owner, developer,
dealer, broker or salesman; and C. Cases involving specific
performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by
buyers od subdivision lots or condominium units against the
owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman.

Administrative Law 2016

Atty. Gallant Soriano