CHAPTER V

QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
TIBAYAN,TERESITA DAVID, CPA, MBA
JURIS DOCTOR-20202457
July 8, 2021
Definition Of Terms
Quasi-judicial
is defined as term applied to the actions or discretions of public administrative officers or
bodies required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and
draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of a
judicial nature. This broad definition includes an official exercising quasi-judicial function short
of that of a judge, such as a public prosecutor. The quasi-judicial function becomes similar
to that of a judge when it goes further into adjudication or the determination of rights,
privileges and duties resulting in a decision or order which applies to a specific situation and
becomes final and executory after a certain period of times has expired.
Quasi-judicial body
is an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature, which exercises
adjudicative power affecting the rights of private persons. It is its basic function to adjudicate
claims and/or determine rights, and unless its decision if reasonable appealed to the proper
reviewing authority, the same attains finality and becomes executory.
► 
Quasi-Judicial Power
► It has been held that quasi-judicial power is incapable of exact definition. Quasi-
judicial function may refer to other than that which a court of justice performs,
such as that of a public prosecutor who is said to be a quasi-judicial officer
because of the nature of his function, but his duty of conducting preliminary
investigation to determine the existence of probable cause, to file an
information in court and to prosecute the accused has been described as
principally executive in nature and not quasi-judicial.
► The case of Santiago, Jr. v. Bautista, highlights the difficulty of determine one
from the other. This case involved the issue of whether or not the determination
by a committee as who should be ranked first, second and third honors among
graduating pupils is a quasi-judicial power as to be subject to judicial review by
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme court
ruled that its functions does not require quasi-judicial adjudication and quoted,
as test therefor, various authorities:
► 
Quasi-Judicial Power, cont….
‘’’What are judicial or quasi-judicial acts. – It is difficult, if not impossible, precisely to define what are judicial or quasi-
judicial acts, and there is considerable conflict in the decisions in regard thereto, in connection with the law as to the right
to a writ of certiorari. It is clear, however, that it is the nature of the act to be performs, rather than of the officer,
board, or body which perform it, that determines whether or not it is the discharge of a judicial or quasi-judicial function.
 
“In State ex rel. Board of Commrs. V. Dunn (86 Minn. 301, 304, the following statements were made:
‘’’ The precise line of demarcation between what are judicial and what are determinative of ministerial function is often
difficult to determine. The exercise of judicial functions may involve that performance of legislative of administrative or
ministerial duties, may, in a measure, involve the exercise of judicial functions. I may be said generally that the exercise
of judicial functions is to determine what the law is, and what the legal rights of parties are, with respect to a matter in
controversy; and whenever an officer is clothed with that authority, and undertakes to determine those questions, he acts
judicially.’’’
 
The Supreme Court then concluded; ‘’It is evident, upon the foregoing authorities, that the so-called committee on the
rating of students for honor whose actions are questioned in its case exercised neither judicial nor quasi-judicial functions in
the performance of its assigned task. From the above-quoted portions of the decisions cited, it will be gleaned that
before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial act, it is necessary that there be a law that
gives rise to some specific rights if persons of property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the
controversy ensuing therefrom is brought, in turn, before the tribunal, board of officer clothed with power and
authority to determine what that law is and thereupon adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties.
Quasi-judicial adjudication.

The resolution of controversies is the raison d’etre of courts. (reason or justification for existence)
Essential function is accomplished by
1.) The ascertainment of all the material and relevant facts from the pleadings and from the evidence adduced by the
parties, and
2.)After that determination of the facts has been completed, by the application of the law thereto to the end that the
controversy may be settled authoritatively, definitely and finally.
The function requires:
(1)previously established rules and principles;
(2)concrete facts, whether past or present, affecting determinate individuals; and
(3)decision as to whether these facts are governed by the rules and principles.
These requirements are also applicable to the adjudication of contested cases by quasi-judicial agencies.
Adjudication means an agency process for the formulation of a final order, which presupposes compliance with such
requirements before such final order is issued.
Quasi-judicial agencies, in exercise of their quasi-judicial power, perform functions similar to those of courts of justice.
This means that an administrative agency, clothed with quasi-judicial power and in the exercise thereof, receives evidence,
ascertains the facts therefrom, determines what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and on the basis of all
these decides the controversy and renders judgment thereon.
Quasi-judicial adjudication refers to a determination of rights, privileges and duties by an administrative agency resulting in
a decision or order affecting a named person and becoming final and executory after the lapse of a certain period.
Distinguished from administrative function
The fact that an administrative body is tasked to ascertain facts, determines whether certain
conclusions may be drawn therefrom by applying the law on the subject, such as the determination
of probable cause as basis for charging a person with a crime in court and exercise discretion
thereon, does not necessarily make the body a quasi-judicial tribunal, as its function is still short of
being adjudicative.
► An administrative body, like the office of the public prosecutor, tasked by law to determine
whether or not probable cause exists to warrant the filing on court of criminal charges for
violation a penal stature and to handle its prosecution is not a quasi-judicial body. It is still an
administrative body exercising a function which is principally administrative or executive in
nature.
► However, in Cojuangco u. PCGG, the Court held that the very nature of his function, a
prosecutor is a must be considered to be a quasi-judicial officer, subject to the due process
requirement of the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The ruling accentuates the difficulty of
drawing the line between administrative function and quasi-judicial power and where to draw
the line between one and the other may not be generalized but may only be done by actual
application in concrete contested cases in court, as the Court explained in Santiago u. Bautista.
Distinguished from quasi-legislative functions
► The distinction between a rule or regulation issued be an
administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial power and that
in its quasi-legislative power is important because in the former notice
and hearing are required, while in the latter, notice and hearing are not
necessary, in administrative agency actions. The distinction is also
important as it will determine the appropriate remedy against its
improvident exercise. The general rule is that a judicial action to question
a decision of a quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
power is filed with the court of Appeals, while an action to challenge the
rules and regulations issued by an administrative agency to implement the
law is filed with the Regional Trial Court.
 Reasons for creation of quasi-judicial agencies
“As a result of the growing complexity of the modern society, it has become necessary to
create more and more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified
activities. Specialized in the particularly fields assigned to them, they can deal with the
problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the
legislature or the courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of quasi-
legislative and quasi-judicial powers on what is now not unreasonably called the fourth
department of the government.(Solid Homes Inc. vs. Payawal)

In these clogged court dockets, the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions
with the special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes
on technical matters or essentially factual matters, subject to judicial review in appropriate
cases has become indispensable. It has been held that “between the power lodged in an
administrative body and a court, the unmistakable trend has been to refer it to the former.
Increasingly, this Court has been committed to the view that unless the law speaks clearly
unequivocally, the choice should fall on an administrative agency.” This is to help unclog the
dockets and to enable the court to decide more cases falling within its jurisdiction.
Voluntary arbitrator a quasi-judicial officer
Arbitration is the reference of a dispute to an impartial third person for determination on the
basis of evidence and arguments presented by the parties who have bound themselves to accept
the decision.
It may be voluntary or compulsory.

Voluntary arbitration is the referral of a dispute by the parties pursuant to a voluntary arbitration
clause or agreement to an impartial third person or panel for a final resolution.

Involuntary arbitration is one compelled be the government to accept the resolution of the
dispute through the arbitration of a third party.

The voluntary arbitrator or panel arbitrators makes the award or decision which becomes
final after a certain period from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties.
The nature of the work of voluntary arbitrator, whether acting alone or in a panel makes
him acquire the status of a quasi-judicial agency, as he acts as a quasi-judicial officer who
determines the rights of the parties and renders decision, which is appealable by petition for
review to the Court of Appeals within 15 days from receipt thereof. (Rule 43 of the Revised
Rules of Courts,)
Commencement of the Claim
Note:
► The affidavits attached to the Statement of Claim are required to state only facts of direct
personal knowledge of the affiant or facts based on authentic records. Failure to follow this
requirement will make the affidavits inadmissible and result in their being expunged from the
record (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)

► A violation of this requirement shall subject the party and the person who assisted the party in
the preparation of the affidavits, to appropriate disciplinary action (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)

► All documents attached to the Statement of Claim or Response that are required to be certified,
shall be certified by the signature of the plaintiff or defendant concerned. Certification by a
party is not needed for public or official documents (Sec. 26, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)

► The Rules do not prohibit joinder of causes of action. Separate claims arising from distinct
causes of action may be joined in a single statement of claim provided the total amount does not
exceed P400,000 (Sec. 8, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
►
► Upon filing of the claim, the plaintiff shall pay the docket and other legal fees prescribed
under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Exemption from the payment of filing fees shall be
granted only by the Supreme Court (Sec. 10, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
 B

JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction
The word “jurisdiction” is derived from the two Latin words,
“juris” and “dico,” which mean “I speak by the law.”

Jurisdiction
 means the power or capacity conferred be the Constitution or by law to a
court or tribunal to entertain, hear and determine certain controversies,
and render judgment thereon.
 is determined be the stature in force at the time of the commencement
of the action.
 is ether one over the nature if the action, over the subject matter, or
over the issues framed in the pleadings or over person of the parties.
Extent of jurisdiction
► Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought, which is
vested by law and which is not acquired be consent or acquiescence of the parties, nor by the unilateral assumption
thereof by a tribunal, neither can it be fixed by the will of the parties, nor can it be acquired through, or waived,
enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of the parties, nor can it be conferred by acquiescence of the court of
tribunal.
► Judicial power, the power to hear and decide causes between parties who have the right to sue in courts of law and
equity, belongs to the judiciary of the courts. Jurisdiction to hear and decide such causes is granted be the Constitution
or by the statutes, and unless a jurisdiction on a specific matter has been matter has been clearly conferred by
Congress upon a quasi-judicial power agency, the latter cannot exercise at and the same remains with the courts under
their constitutionally conferred judicial power. The rule is that an administrative body to which quasi-judicial
power has been delegated is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and as such it could wield only such powers as are
specially granted to it by its enabling stature. Its jurisdiction is interpreted in strictissimi juris. This rule is
based on the settled principle that an administrative agency of officer can exercise only such powers as are
expressly granted as well as those which are necessarily implied therefrom. Villegas u. Subido.
► 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. The extent to which an administrative agency may exercise such
powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the stature creating or empowering such agency. The
grant of quasi-judicial power includes the authority to determine issues incident thereto. Thus, the power granted
to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board by law to hear and decide cases of unsound real estate business practices
and cases of specific performance includes the power to interpret and apply contract, determine the rights of the
parties under these contracts, and award damages whenever appropriate.
Re-statement of the rule
► It has been held that to be valid, the quasi-judicial prerogatives must be limited only those incidental
to, or in connection with, the performance of administrative duties which do not amount to
conferment of jurisdiction over a matter exclusively vested in the courts. In other words, the grant of
quasi-judicial power should not by the only power conferred, but should instead be only incidental to
the administrative agency’s main task of implementing the law in the specific fields of its expertise.
Otherwise, the agency becomes a specialized court of justice under the judicial branch. However,
where an administrative agency is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the
subject matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within its jurisdiction. For
split jurisdiction is not favoured.

► The delegation of quasi-judicial powers to administrative agencies has been accepted as a fact
of life of modern governments and cannot be considered violative of the due process of law as
long as the cardinal rights of due process in administrative proceeding are observed.
Estoppel to deny jurisdiction
The general rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the
Constitution or by law, and may not be conferred by agreement of the parties, nor can
it be waived. It maybe be raised at any stage of the proceeding as a defense.

Exception:
However, there are instances when a party may be estopped to question the jurisdiction
of a quasi-judicial agreement agency. Where, for instance, an aggrieved party appealed
an adverse decision to a higher administrative body, such as the Office of the President,
he cannot thereafter challenge the jurisdiction of the appellate body to decide the
appealed case.
It is not the privilege of a party who, to accomplish his purpose, has affirmed and
invoked the jurisdiction of an agency over a particular matter to afterwards deny
such jurisdiction to escape penalty or liability imposed by the appellate agency.
Party cannot take inconsistent position
A party of litigant cannot take a position on court different
from that which he took before an administrative body.

To allow a litigant to assume a different posture when he comes before the court and
challenges the position he had accepted at the administrative level, would be to sanction
a procedure whereby the court – which is supposed to review administrative
determinations – would not review, but determine and decide for the first time, a
question not raised at the administrative forum. This may not be permitted for the
reason that underlies the requirement of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies to
give administrative authorities the prior opportunity to decide controversies within its
competence and in much the same way that, on the judicial level, issue not raise in the
lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeals.
 C

ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE
 Rules of procedures, generally
► Every quasi-judicial body or agency has its own rules of procedure, which the body or agency issues as guides in its
adjudication of cases filed with it. The Constitution empowers quasi-judicial agencies to issue their own rules of
procedure. It provides the rules of procedure of quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court. This is an implied grant of power to issue procedural rules. The rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, Constitution).
► Even in the absence of such constitutional provision, or even when the law creating the agency is silent on the matter,
a quasi-judicial body has the implied power to promulgate its rules or procedure. The grant or quasi-judicial power to
an administrative agency carries with it the power to promulgate its rules or procedure for the proper exercise of its
adjudicative power and for the guidance of interested parties or party litigants. For it is settled that where a general
power is conferred or a duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance
of the other is also conferred, by necessary implication. 
► Rules of procedure issued by quasi-judicial bodies must not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Substantive law creates substantive rights. Then term “substantive rights” includes those which one enjoys under
the legal system. Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or which
regulates rights and duties which given rise to cause of action as opposed to adjective of remedial law, which
prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasi
Rules subject to Supreme court modification

All procedural rules, whether issued by quasi-judicial

agencies or embodied in statute enacted by Congress,
are subject to alteration or modification by the
Supreme court in the exercise of its constitutional rule-
making power. 
Technical rules not applicable
► The technical rules of procedure and of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in
administrative proceeding. The purpose is to free administrative boards or agencies form the compulsion of technical
rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceeding would not
invalidate an administrative order. But this assurance of flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to
justify orders without basis in evidence is more than a scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

► Technical rules of court practice, procedure and evidence are not applied with rigidity in administrative
proceedings. The nature of the administrative bodies, the character of the duties they are required to perform, the
purpose for which there are organized and the persons who compose them may determine the procedure they apply to
resolve administrative cases before them.

► It a settled “principle that administrative rules of procedure should be construed liberally in order to promote their
object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respect claims and
defenses. The formalities usually attendant in court hearing need not be present in an administrative investigation,
provided that the parties are head and given the opportunity to adduce their respective evidence.”
Procedure prescribed by Book VII of 1987
Administrative Code
► The 1987 Administrative Code, in its Book VII, has prescribed a set of rules on administrative
procedure. Section 1, Book VII, provides that the rules of procedure therein prescribed “shall be
applicable to all agencies defined in the next succeeding section, except the
a.) Congress,
b.) the Judiciary,
c.) the Constitutional Commission,
d.) military establishments in all matters relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel,
e.) the Board of Pardons and Parole, and
f.) state universities.”
► The term “agency” “includes and department, bureau, office, commission, authority of officer of
the National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses,
grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate case; research institutions with respect to licensing
regulating private rights, privilege, occupation or business; and officials in the exercise of
disciplinary power as provided by law.
 Justiciable controversy, contested case
► The assumption of jurisdiction of an administrative agency to adjudicate a controversy
requires that there must be an appropriate case which involves a justiciable controversy.
► Justiciable controversy such as an occasion, an exercise of an administrative agency's
exclusive jurisdiction as vested by law to it would require an assertion of a right by a proper
party against another who, in turn, contests it. It is one instituted by and against parties
having interest in the subject matter appropriate for judicial determination predicated on a
given state of facts. That controversy must be raised by the party entitled to maintain the
action. He is the person to whom the right to seek judicial redress or relief belongs which
can be enforced against the party correspondingly charged with having been responsible for,
or to have given rise to, the cause of action. A person or entity tasked with the power to
adjudicate stands neutral and impartial and acts on the basis of the admissible
representations of the contending parties.
► Before a tribunal, board or office may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary
that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which
adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought, in
turn, before the tribunal, board or officer clothed with power and authority to determine
what that law is and thereupon adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties.
Institution of proceedings
► In contested cases, where claims are asserted and reliefs are ought, the proceedings are instituted by the filing of a
complaint or petition. The complaint may be a formal one, which alleges the ultimate facts and prays for specific
reliefs. Where the applicable law or rules or procedure require verification of the complaint or petition, the
complainant or petitioner should verify it.
► A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true
and correct of his knowledge/and belief. Since the rule against forum shopping applies to quasi-judicial
proceedings, the complaint should contain a certification under oath that complainant:
(a) has not therefore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and
(c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
► Some proceedings are, however, instituted by mere ex parte or informal application, such as an application for
permits or licenses or for renewal thereof. They may even be initiated by a mere letter sent by a complainant.
These proceedings become contested when the application is opposed or denied, or such letter, after ex parte
investigation, show the need for the person complained of to be given opportunity to be heard on the matter.
Still other proceedings are begun by form or prepared complaints, which the complainants merely fill in the blanks
therein or check the appropriate information asked, like form complaints of the Office of the Labor Arbiter.
Forum shopping
► Forum shopping is the improper practice of going from one court to another in the
hope of securing a favorable relief in one court which another court has denied or the
filing of repetitious suits or proceedings in different courts concerning substantially
the same subject matter. There is also forum shopping whenever, as a result of an
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum,
other than appeal or certiorari. The principle applies not only with respect to suits
filed in courts but also in connection with litigations commenced in courts while
administrative proceeding is pending, in order to defeat administrative processes and
in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling.

► Forum shopping is also defined as the act of a party against whom an adverse
judgement has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (other than be appeal
or the special civil action of certiorari) or of instituting two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other
would make a favorable disposition.
Test to determine forum shopping
► The test to determining whether a party has violated the rule against forum shopping is whether the
elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata
in the other.
► In other words, if a party pursues the
a.) same cause of action,
b.) involving the same issues, parties and subject matter,
c.) in two different fora,
a lawyer may be guilty of forum shopping.
What is important in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and
parties litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or
related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating possibility of
conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.
► Litis pendentia as a for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that situation wherein another action is pending
between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and
vexatious
► Res judicata requires that there be a decision on the merits; by a court of competent jurisdiction; the decision
is final; and the two actions involved identical parties, subject matter and causes of action. If one of these
elements is absent, there is no forum shopping.
Acquisition of jurisdiction
► A quasi-judicial agency can acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by the
latter’s voluntary appearance as by his filing a complaint, petition or an initiatory of
appropriate pleading and paying the filing fees, if required by the agency's rules.
► The quasi-judicial body can acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by
latter's voluntarily appearing or submitting to the body or by service of summons upon him.
Appearance may be made not only by actual appearance but also by the submission of
pleadings with the tribunal.
►  Summons is a writ by which a respondent is notified of the action against him and is asked
to file his answer thereto. The service of summons upon him is the means by which the
quasi-judicial agency acquires jurisdiction over his person, in the absence of voluntary
appearance on his part. The service of summons is a very vital and indispensable ingredient
of due process, as it will give the party notice to be heard. However, in quasi-judicial
proceedings, procedural rules governing service of summons are not strictly construed.
Substantial compliance thereof is sufficient
Pre-trial conference
► Some rules of procedure of quasi-judicial agencies require that before a contested case is
scheduled for hearing, a pre-trial conference, either formal or informal, is held among the parties
to the case.
► Section 2, Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Court, applies in a suppletory character on the nature and
purposes of a pre-trial, which include
a.) the possibility of an amicable settlement;
b.) the simplification of the issues;
c.) the possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid
unnecessary proof;
d.) advisability of referring the case to arbitration; and
e.) the propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment or of dismissing
the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist.
► Section 10, Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code requires that "To expedite demonstrative
proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and obviate expensive litigations, every agency shall,
in the public interest, encourage amicable settlement, compromise and arbitration." It also encourages
the parties to enter into stipulation of facts or to agree on a settlement.
Default in administrative case
► A party in an administrative proceeding may be declared in default.
► The word "default" is used in its broad meaning, to include failure to
file responsive pleading, failure to appear in any hearing, or failure to
present evidence, in any of which instances the hearing may proceed in
his absence without violating the party's right to due process.

► If a party duly summoned, or duly notified, to appear at an

administrative investigation, refuses to appear, he may be declared
in default and the investigation may proceed without his presence,
without violating his right to due process (Auyong v. Court of Appeals)
Administrative proceeding hearing
► Administrative proceeding involves:
(a) taking and evaluation of evidence;
(b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and
(c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved.
► Hearing does not necessarily require a trial-type presentation of evidence. The case may
be submitted for resolution on the basis of stipulation of facts, admissions of the parties,
position papers, affidavits and counter-affidavits, without violating due process of law, as
this procedure enables the parties the opportunity to be heard on all issues. To be heard
does not mean verbal arguments before the tribunal; it can be through written pleadings.
However, where it appears that there are issues of fact which cannot be decided without
trial of the case on the merits, one must be held. The rule is that when facts, upon
which the resolution of the case will depend, are in issue, a trial type hearing ought to
be conducted unless the parties waive the same and agree to submit for the resolution
of the factual issues on affidavits and counter-affidavits.
► In case of trial-type hearing, each party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses
presented against him and to submit rebuttal evidenc
Subpoena and contempt of court
► The general rule is that when authority is conferred by law upon an administrative officer or any
non-judicial person, committee or other body to take testimony or evidence, such authority
includes he power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum and to punish or contempt
violation thereof, if authorized by itself to do so, y applying in court for judicial relief for
disobedience thereof.(Section 13, Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code)
► Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and testify at the hearing or
trial of the action or at any investigation conducted under the laws of the country.
► A subpoena duces tecum is an order to produce specified documents, and the same is issued
upon application of a party by showing clear and unequivocable proof that the documents sought
to be produced contain evidence relevant and material to the issue before the agency. The
subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is within the authority of the
agency; the demand is not too indefinite; and the information is reasonably relevant. 
► The authority to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum and to punish for contempt any
disobedience thereof by itself, if so authorized, or through the courts, applies only in the
exercise by the administrative agency of its quasi-judicial power and not its administrative
or ministerial functions.
Evidence
►The right to cross-examine witnesses, which Sec. 12(3), Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code gives every
party, implies that no hearsay evidence be admitted, as the right of cross-examination is the safeguard against
its admission.
►Thus, affidavits of witnesses may not be considered, unless the affiants are put in the witness stand for cross-
examination on their affidavits, except when the parties waive the same expressly or impliedly. Apart from
admissible evidence, the agency may admit and give probative value to evidence commonly accepted by reasonably
prudent men in the conduct of their affairs; documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excepts,
if the original is not readily available, and if the original is in the official custody of a public officer, a certified copy
thereof may be accepted; and the agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of general cognizable
technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge.

► Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites:

(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

► The guiding principle is that of notoriety. The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the
tribunal. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised with caution; care must be taken that the requisite of
notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. To assure
compliance with the requisites of judicial notice, the rules require that the quasi-judicial tribunal or agency shall
notify the parties of the facts taken judicial notice and shall afford them the opportunity to contest the facts so
noticed.
Hierarchy of evidence values
► In the hierarchy of evidential values,
1.) the highest is Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
2.) followed by Clear and Convincing Evidence,
3.) Preponderance of Evidence, and
4.) Substantial Evidence,
in that order.
► Proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is required for conviction of an accused in a criminal case, means that which
is the logical and inevitable result of the evidence on record, exclusive of any other consideration, or moral certainty
or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.“
► Clear and convincing refers to that "measure or degree of proof which will produce in mind of trier of facts a firm
belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established; it is intermediate, being more than mere
preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases."
► Preponderance of evidence, which is the degree of evidence required in civil cases, is meant simply evidence which
is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to. It means the weight, credit and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and it is usually considered to be synonymous with the terms "greater
weight of evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." It means probably the truth. It is evidence which is
more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
► Substantial evidence is less than preponderance of evidence.
Substantial evidence
The evidence required to support a decision in a contested case in an administrative
proceeding is only substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence or the evidence required to reach a conclusion in administrative
proceedings or to establish a fact before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or
circumstantial. It means more than a scintilla but may be somewhat less than preponderance,
even if other reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise, us for the appellate court
cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the administrative or quasi-judicial
agency in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.
This quantum of substantial evidence is required for all administrative determinations, such as
in proceedings for cancellation or suspension of licenses, the imposition of disciplinary penalties,
or resolution of controversies between private parties by quasi-judicial agencies.
It means such evidence which affords substantial basis from which the fact in issue can be
reasonably inferred.
Delegation of Quasi-judicial power
► Where a law grants a commission of some members administrative body
quasi-judicial power to hear and resolve cases falling within its competence
and to adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business and perform
such duties necessary for the effective accomplishment of its functions, and
contains nothing which denies or withholds the authority to delegate
adjudicatory functions to a division, said body may constitute adjudicatory
divisions for the purpose of effectively carrying out its administrative
responsibilities and quasi-judicial powers as a regulatory body.

► The power conferred upon an administrative agency to issue rule and

regulations necessary to carry out its functions has been held to be
adequate source of authority to delegate a particular function, unless by
express provision of the law or by implication it has been withheld.
Delegation to receive evidence

► A quasi-judicial body, in the discharge of its adjudicatory functions, may delegate the function to
receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary for the resolution of factual issues falling
within its jurisdiction. The delegation is not unconstitutional or open to objection that the delegate is
vested with judicial power because the latter merely reports the facts found and the quasi-judicial
body retains the power to approve or reject the report and to decide the case.

► It is well settled that while the power resides solely in the administrative agency vested by law, this
does not preclude a delegation of the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which the decision of
the administrative agency will be made. 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 makes his decision. It is sufficient that the judgment and discretion finally
exercised are those of the officer authorized by law.
 D

DUE PROCESS IN QUASI-

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Generally
► Due process consists of two concepts:
1.) Substantive and
2.) Procedural.
► Substantive due process is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice.
Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. To satisfy the due process requirement, official
action must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression. Due process is hostile to any official
action marred by lack of reasonableness. It has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of
the sporting idea of fair play. In essence,
► Procedural due process consists of the two basic rights of
1.) Notice and
2.) Hearing, as well as
3.) The guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal.
► By procedural due process is meant a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders
judgment only after trial. Due process contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered,
affecting one's person or property. It is designed to secure justice as a living reality; not to sacrifice it by paying undue
homage to formality. For substance must prevail over form.
► In essence, procedural due process refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced while substantive
due process requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair,
reasonable and just.
Cardinal primary requirements of due process, generally
► The cardinal primary requirements of due process in administrative proceedings are:
1.) the right to a hearing which includes the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof;
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) the decision must have something to support itself;
(4) the evidence must be substantial, and substantial evidence means such evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
(5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) the tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own or his own independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of subordinate;
(7) the board or body should in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to
the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered; and
(8) the officer or tribunal conducting the investigation must be vested with competent jurisdiction and so
constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty and impartiality.
► What due process abhors is not lack of previous notice but the absolute lack of opportunity to heard. The
essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The presence of a party is not always the
cornerstone of due process. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute
absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard
 Requisites of due process, generally
► The minimum requisites of due process in administrative proceedings are
a.) that there be an impartial tribunal constituted to determine the right involved;
b.) that due notice and opportunity to be heard be given;
c.) that the procedure at the hearing be consistent with the essentials of a fair trial that the proceedings be conducted in
such a way that there will be opportunity for a court to determine whether the applicable rules of law and procedure
were observed; and
d.) that the decision or ruling be supported by substantial evidence.
► Although a speedy administration of action implies a speedy trial, speed is not the chief objective of a trial. Respect for the
rights of all parties and the requirement procedural due process equally apply in proceedings before the administrative
agencies with quasi-judicial perspective in administrative decision making and for maintaining the vision which led the
criterion of the administrative office.
► In quasi-judicial proceedings where it appears that there are issues of fact which cannot be decided without a trial of the
case on the merits, one must be held. The rule is where an adjudicative fact is at issue, a trial type hearing ought to be
held.
► In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to include the following
a.) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights.
b.) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present the witness and evidence in one’s
favor, and to defend one’s rights
c.) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a
reasonable quarantee of honesty as well as impartiality
d.) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or
contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.
Cold-neutrality of impartial judge
 The principle that a litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality if an impartial
judge requires that a reviewing officer before whom an appeal from a decision which he
previously rendered as subordinate office has been filed cannot resolve the appeal without
depriving the appeallant of due process of law.
 A critical component of due process is a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal.
Ingrained is the rule that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge.
 For instances,
a.) a hearing officer in a contested case cannot act as prosecutor in the same case.
b.) an administrative officer who has rendered a decision in a contested case cannot review,
after he has been promoted to a higher position with review functions, the decision in
the said case. In these and similar situations, he is not expected to exhibit the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge. (Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG).
Impartial and competent tribunal
►One of the indispensable requirements of due process in administrative proceedings is
that the officer or tribunal conducting the investigation must be vested with
competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty and impartiality.

► In Fabella v. CA, the issue raised is whether or not the right of public school teachers
who allegedly staged a strike to due process was violated as to render the disciplinary
sanction against them invalid, when the committee that conducted the investigation
did not include as member a representative of their organization specifically required
by law to be so represented. The Court held that the respondents' rights to due process
were violated.
Notice and hearing
► Due process as guaranteed by the Constitution extends to administrative proceedings, the
foremost requirement of which is the right to a hearing, which includes the right to
present one's case and to submit evidence in support thereof. The need for notice and
opportunity to be heard is the heart of procedural due process.
► A violation of any of the cardinal requirements of due process in administrative
proceedings renders any judgment or order issued therein null and void and can be
attacked in any appropriate proceeding.
► For instance, a collector of customs who seized a telephone set because it was an
unmanisfested cargo, as against the vessels claim that was not, without giving the latter
the chance to prove its claim, and who immediately imposed upon the vessel a huge fine,
committed grave abuse of discretion and violated the elementary rule of due process.
(NDC v. Collector of Customs)
Prior notice and hearing required
► In administrative cases, the general rule is that prior notice and hearing are
necessary only where the law so requires. The inquiry should therefore be into the
enabling statute which clothes an administrative agency or officer with certain
duties and responsibilities in the discharge of which some persons may be adversely
affected.

► If the statute requires prior notice and hearing, then the administrative agency or
officer must comply with the due process requirements as a condition for the
validity of its/his acts. "In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice
and hearing. The notice shall be served at least five (5) days before the date of the
hearing and shall state the date, time and place of hearing.“(Sec. 11, Book VII, 1987
Administrative Code)

► Where the applicable law requires previous notice or hearing, compliance therewith
is necessary before official action may be done.
When prior notice not required
► Where the law is silent on prior notice and hearing as a requirement before an agency action,
which refers to the whole or part of every agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief or its
equivalent or denial thereof, can be done, compliance with the requirement of prior notice and
hearing depends upon the nature of the power to be exercised or the end to be achieved.

► As a general rule, where what is exercised is police power duly delegated to an administrative
officer, or where what is sought to be prevented or achieved requires immediate action for the
public good or interest, prior notice or hearing is not necessary for the validity of the action
taken, so long as the aggrieved party is subsequently accorded hearing on the action taken, by
the administrative agency setting the case for hearing or upon motion or petition by the
aggrieved party.
► Thus, the withdrawal, suspension or annulment of a license may be effected without notice and
hearing, in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and regulations or when
public security, health or safety so require.
►  
Prior notice not required in the exercise of police power
► Where the act questioned results from the exercise of police power of the state, prior notice and hearing
are not required, unless the applicable law so expressly provides. Considerations of procedural due process
cannot outweigh the evil sought to be prevented by the exercise of police power. In any event, the aggrieved
party may subsequently be heard either before the administrative agency by filing a motion for
reconsideration or before the court by filing an appropriate action to challenge the validity of the act done.
► The abatement of a public nuisance per se does not also require prior hearing. Prior notice may be given to
the affected party not to give him the opportunity to be heard but to give him the opportunity to remove or
abate that which is a nuisance per se, otherwise the same may be abated at his expense.
► Nuisances are of two kinds
► a.) nuisance per se
is recognized under any and all circumstances because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or
safety, and, for that reason, may be abated summarily, without legal proceedings and without hearing,
under the undefined law of necessity or under the police power
► b.) nuisance per accidens.
which depends upon certain conditions or circumstances and which is a question of fact, cannot be abated
without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such thing does in law constitute a
nuisance
The legislature may authorize a public officer to abate a public nuisance per se summarily without judicial
proceedings or prior notice or hearing
Prior notice not required….

Twin rights of notice and hearing may be considered dispensable in certain cases, such as .
1.) In proceedings where there is an urgent need for immediate action, like the summary
abatement of a nuisance per se (Article 704), the preventive suspension of public servant
facing administrative charges (Section 63, Local Government Code, B.P. Blg. the padlocking
of filthy restaurants or theaters showing obscene movies or like establishments which are
immediate threats to public health and decency, and the cancellation of a passport of a
person Bought for criminal prosecution;
2.) Where there is tentativeness of administrative action, that is, where the respondent is not
precluded from enjoying the right to notice and hearing at a later time without prejudice to
the person affected, such as the summary distraint and levy of the property of a delinquent
taxpayer, and the replacement of a temporary appointee; and
3.) Where the twin rights have previously been offered but the right to exercise them had not
been claimed.
Notice minimum requirement in summary dismissal

► In summary dismissal proceedings, which are authorized by law to be instituted against erring
police officers, the filing of charges which must be made known to the respondent and the
allowance of reasonable opportunity to respondent to answer the charges constitute he
minimum requirements of due process.
► Unless other fully effective means for implementing the constitutional requirement of notice and
hearing are devised, it is mandatory that charges be specified in writing and that the affidavits in
support thereof be attached to the complaint because these are the only ways by which evidence
against the respondent can be brought to his knowledge. The formal investigation, which is
dispensed with in summary dismissal proceedings, refers to the presentation of witnesses by their
direct examination and not to the requirement that the respondent be notified of the charges and
given the chance to defend himself.
Notice and hearing in rate-fixing
► The issuance of a fixing rate order, which is issued by an administrative agency in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial power, requires notice and hearing.
► Where a rate-fixing rule issued by an administrative body applies to a particular person or
entity, predicated upon a finding of fact, the administrative agency, in making said finding
of act, performed a function partaking of a quasi-judicial character, which demands previous
notice and hearing. However, the fixing of the rate is assumed that it was issued after
proper notice and hearing, and the rate cannot be modified, over the aggrieved person’s
objection, without such notice and hearing.
► The applicable rule is that “whether notice and hearing in proceedings before a public
service commission are necessary depends chiefly upon statutory or constitutional
provisions applicable to such proceedings, which make notice and hearing a prerequisite
to action by the commission, and upon the nature and object of such proceedings, that
is, whether the proceedings are, on the one hand, legislative and rule-making in
character, or are, on the other hand, determinative and judicial or quasi-judicial,
affecting the rights and property of private or specific persons.”
Prior notice in issuance of ex parte or
preliminary order

► As a general rule, provisional reliefs, such as temporary res-training

orders, cease or desist orders, may be granted by quasi-judicial
agencies without prior notice or hearing.

► Similarly, in disciplinary proceedings, the disciplining authority may

preventively suspend the officer or employee charged with a grave
offense without prior notice or hearing, the preventive suspension not
being a penalty.  
Opportunity to be heard
► It has often been held that the “essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the
opportunity to explain one’s side or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.” This ruling presumes that there has been an adverse decision where the aggrieved
party has not been heard and his filing of a motion for reconsideration thereof cures the procedural
infirmity. It has been held that for “as long as the parties were given the opportunity to be heard
before judgment was rendered, the demands of due process were sufficiently met”
► Even if there is notice or opportunity to be heard, which is said to be the essence of due process,
there is still violation of due process which renders the decision or ruling of the administrative
agency invalid, where:
(1) there is no evidence to support the decision,
(2) where evidence other than that presented during the proceedings or disclosed in the records
was taken into account in rendering the ruling,
(3) where the quasi-judicial body or officer did not possess the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge, as when he acted as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge at the same time,
and
(4) where the administrative officer or body acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction.
 Where there is no denial of due process
A party who has been notified of the hearing but failed to attend the same or
refrained from participating in the agency proceedings cannot complain that he has
been denied of due process

► Where a party has been given notice of hearing in a case involving the cancellation of his license
as a surveyor but instead filed through counsel a motion to dismiss and there after he and his
counsel agreed to the re-setting of the hearing to another date, at which date he and his counsel
did not appear and the hearing proceeded in his and his counsel's absence and thereafter a
decision was rendered revoking his license, it cannot be said that he has been denied due
process.
► For the presence of a party in a trial is not always the essence of due process. All that the law
requires to satisfy adherence to the constitutional precept is that the parties be given notice of
the trial, and opportunity to be heard, which were all complied with.
Informal proceeding proscribed

► A very informal conduct of an administrative proceeding, consisting of not informing or

furnishing the respondent of a complaint that initiated the case, requiring in a letter to
submit documents which left the impression that compliance was all that was expected of
him, which he prompt complied, and faulting him for the alleged non-receipt of said
documents, even when he again submitted the documents, the decision of the
administrative officer against him violated his right to due process and was thus null and
void, and the fact that his appeal to higher administrative body was not timely filed did not
validate the decision because a void judgment could never become final and could be
attacked in any appropriate proceeding.
 Motion for reconsideration cures procedural due
process defects; exceptions
► The rule that the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the decision or ruling against a party cures the defect in
the lack of prior notice and hearing as to preclude the party from claiming denial of due process assumes that the
other requirements of due process have been complied with. If any of the other requirements has not been
observed, the rule does not apply, as
(1) when the evidence against the party is not set forth in the record of the case, one of the indispensable
requirements of due process being that the decision of an administrative agency must be rendered on the evidence
contained in the record and disclosed to the party affected and the motion for reconsideration not being sufficient to
cure the fatal defect.
► (2) the fact that the affected party had been heard before an investigating body, whose findings were the basis of the
disciplinary action against him, does not preclude a finding that he has been denied due process, rendering the penalty
imposed as invalid, where the investigating body did not include as member a representative from an organization
specifically required by law to be so represented therein because one of the indispensable requirements of due
process that the officer or tribunal conducting the investigation must be vested with competent jurisdiction and so
constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty and impartiality, was not
followed.
► (3) A party may have been afforded the opportunity to be heard in a motion for reconsideration. However, such
opportunity is nothing and he is still denied due process, where the decision against him has nothing to support
itself, one of the cardinal requirements of due process being that the decision or ruling of an administrative body must
be supported by substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence as basis of decision
► Another cardinal requirement of due process in administrative adjudication is that the decision must
be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected.

► The decision must be supported substantial evidence, which refers to such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion or to afford a substantial basis
from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. Absent such substantial evidence, the
decision is void
► Thus, an order imposing a penalty based on information not presented during the hearing nor
contained in the record and disclosed to the party penalized violates such cardinal rule and is
invalid, as violative of due process.
Right to counsel not a due process requirement
► "Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel during an administrative
inquiry?" (Lumiqued v. Exevea)
► It appears in this case that Regional Director Lumiqued of the Department of Agrarian Reform was charged
administratively and eventually dismissed from the service for malversation, violation of COA rules and
regulations and oppression and harassment. In the hearings of a committee that investigated him, he was
not assisted by counsel, although in subsequent schedule of hearings, he moved for resetting to enable him
to employ the services of counsel, which was granted but he nor his counsel appeared on the date he
himself had chosen, so the committee deemed the case submitted for resolution. The committee
recommended his dismissal from the service, which recommendation was approved and he was dismissed
by the President. His motions for reconsideration were denied. In the petition for certiorari and
mandamus filed with the Supreme Court, his heirs (he died pervious to said petition) faulted –
► "These arguments are untenable and misplaced. The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless
the waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel, is a right afforded a suspect or an accused
during custodial investigation. It is not an absolute right and may, thus be invalid or rejected in a
criminal proceeding and, with more reason an administrative inquiry. In the case at bar, petitioners
invoke the right of an accused in criminal proceedings to have competent and independent counsel of
his own choice.
► The right to due process is not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or the
law.(Nera v. Auditor General)
 E.
DECISION, APPEAL
AND
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Decision defined
►"Decision" in administrative lay means the whole or any
part of the final disposition, not of an interlocutory
character, whether affirmative, negative, or injunctive in
form, of a quasi-judicial agency in any matter, including
licensing, rate fixing and granting of rights and privileges.
Period to render decision
► Section 14 of Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code provides that the "agency shall
decide each case within thirty (30) days following its submission."
► A case is deemed submitted for decision after the both parties shall have concluded
presentation of their evidence or upon the filing of their respective memoranda, if
required or if they so ask and the same is granted. While the law employs the word "shall,"
which imports a command or implies that it shall be mandatory to decide the case within
thirty (30) days, a time provision for decision is construed as directory, so that the failure
of the agency concerned to decide the case within thirty (30) days does not deprive it
of the jurisdiction to thereafter resolve it, nor render such decision invalid.
► It is a settled doctrine that a statute requiring rendition of judgment within a specified
time is generally construed to be merely directory so that non-compliance with it does
not invalidate the judgment on the theory that if the statute had intended such result it
would have clearly indicated.
► But the failure of the administrative or quasi-judicial officer to decide the case within
the prescribed period may render him administratively liable therefor, as he is enjoined
by the code of conduct for public officers to promptly act on all matters before him.
Form of decision
► Quasi-judicial bodies are not courts of justice. Their quasi-judicial powers are usually
mere incidents of their primary functions as executive and administrative bodies, tasked
to implement the laws. It has been held that the constitutional provision that "No decision
shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based" is not applicable to decisions issued by them. (Section
14, Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code )
► The fact that quasi-judicial agencies are not courts of justice does not excuse them from
the requirement that their decisions should clearly and distinctly express the facts and the
laws on which they are based.
► Quasi-judicial body may not just say “this party won and that party lost” or may not just
state the disposition without stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the laws on which
the disposition is based, without violating the parties right to due process.
Publication of Decisions

► The law requires that every agency shall publish and make available for public
inspection all decisions or final orders in the adjudication of contested cases.
It shall be the duty of the records officer of the agency or his equivalent
functionary to prepare a register or compilation of those decisions or final
orders for use by the public.
Relief and sanction
► "Relief" includes the whole or part of any grant of money, assistance, license, authority, privilege,
exemption, exception, or remedy; recognition of any claim, right, immunity, privilege, exemption
or exception; or taking of any action upon the application or petition of any person.
► “Sanction" includes the whole or part of a prohibition, limitation or other condition affecting the
liberty of any person; the withholding of relief; the imposition of penalty or fine; the destruction,
taking, seizure or withholding of property; the assessment of damages, reimbursement,
restitution, compensation, cost, charges or fees; the revocation or suspension of license; or the
taking of other compulsory or restrictive action.
►  A quasi-judicial agency can grant a particular relief or impose a specific sanction only
where the enabling law authorizes the agency to do so and the evidence presented or facts
adduced substantially justify it. The agency has no power to grant any relief nor can it
impose any sanction in the absence of any statutory authority on its part.
Finality of decision
► The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the
receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an
administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected. One motion for
reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period.

► Where the rules of administrative agency prohibit the filing of second motion for
reconsideration, the agency is precluded from entertaining a second motion for
reconsideration of its decision which thus becomes final. For while the administrative agency
may alter, modify or reverse its decision with or without a motion for consideration, the same
can be done only before it becomes final and executory. The established principle is that
once a decision comes final and executory, it is removed from the power or jurisdiction of
the quasi-judicial body which rendered it to further alter or amend, much less revoke it.
Reasons of public policy, judicial orderliness, economy and judicial time and the interest of
litigants well as the peace and order of society all require that stability be accorded solemn
and final judgments of courts or quasi-judicial bodies tribunals of competent jurisdiction.
Promulgation of decision
► A decision of an administrative officer or agency, in the exercise quasi-judicial power,
becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated.

► Promulgation means the delivery of the decision to the clerk of court for filing and
publication. It is the process by which decision is published, officially announced, made
known to the public or delivered to the clerk of court for filing, coupled with notice to the
parties or their counsel.
► A decision prepared and signed by a judge but promulgated after his retirement or
separation from the service is void. In other words, if at the time of the promulgation of
a decision or resolution, a judge or a member of a collegiate court or quasi-judicial agency
had earlier signed or registered his vote for the decision, has vacated his office, his vote is
automatically withdrawn or cancelled.
Notice of decision
► The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to
their counsel of record, if any, or to them

► The parties are entitled to be informed of the decision rendered by the quasi-administrative
agency. If a party is represented by counsel, the notice of the decision must be made upon
counsel. It is well-settled that notice to counsel is notice to client. On the other hand, notice
to the client does not amount to notice to counsel. The rule is not a mere technicality, but
one founded on considerations of fair play A party engages an attorney of record precisely
because it does not feel competent to deal with the intricacies of law and procedure.
Furthermore, as the party directly served would have to communicate with his attorney and turn
over to him the notice received, the net result would be to noticeably shorten the usable period
for taking the proper steps required to protect the party's interest. Thus, when a party is
represented by his counsel in a particular case, notice of proceedings must be served upon the
counsel to constitute valid notice. But when a party is represented by counsel who did not
leave his address or make of record his address in the case where notice can be sent, the
notice sent to the party himself is valid.
Decision by collegiate body; vote required
► A collegiate body can validly decide only when it formally acts as such. A decision by a
director for the collegiate body is void, just as the decision of only one member thereof is
void where a quorum of two is required. As the decision is void, it cannot be ratified. The
collegiate body has to meet and decide the case anew.
► The powers and duties of boards and other collegiate bodies may not be exercised by
individual members separately. Their acts are official only when done by the members
convened in session, upon the concurrence of at least a majority. The legislative intent
in creating a board or commission is precisely in order that the members thereof should
deliberate collectively and in order that their views and ideas should be exchanged and
examined before reaching a conclusion. This is the essence of a board’s or commission’s
action, save where otherwise provided by law. An action or decision of a collegiate
body, to be valid, must be arrived at a meeting duly held by its members participating
and voting by majority vote. This means that one man alone cannot take place of the
whole board, nor can his decision be taken or have the effect of a decision of the board
duly constituted.
Final decisions not reviewable
► Under Section 15, Chapter III of Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987, decisions
of administrative agencies become final and executory fifteen days after receipt of
a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an
administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected. One motion
for reconsideration is allowed. A final resolution or decision of an administrative
agency also binds the Office of the President even if such agency is under the
administrative supervision and control of the latter.
► Administrative decisions must end sometime, as fully as public policy demands that
finality be written on judicial controversies. Public interest requires that proceedings
already terminated should not be altered at every step, for the rule of non qieta
movere (not to disturb what has been settled) prescribes that what had already been
terminated should not be disturbed. A disregard of this principle does not commend
itself to sound public policy.
Appeal in contested cases
► The rules of procedure of some quasi-judicial agencies prescribe the requirements for appeal to higher
administrative agencies. Some rules require payment of appeal fees, the posting of appeal bond, and filing of
notice of appeal to be accompanied by a memorandum appeal, which should point out the assigned errors and
discuss them.
► An appellant should comply with all the requirements for perfecting an appeal applicable to specific cases in
particular quasi-judicial agencies, otherwise his appeal will be dismissed or denied due course. The reason is
that appeal is a purely statutory right and he who avails of it must strictly comply with all its requisites.
► Appeal is not part of due process, but a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner and
within the period prescribed by law. And where the law does not grant a right to appeal, such remedy cannot
be invoked.
► In the absence of any specific rules applicable to a particular agency, the appeal, if allowed by law,
should comply with what Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code, which provides for the appeal
procedure. 
► Effect of Appeal. The appeal shall stay the decision appealed from unless otherwise provided by law or the
appellate agency directs execution pending appeal, as it may deem just, considering the nature and
circumstances of the case.
► The perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory
but jurisdictional. If appeal is not perfected, the decision becomes final and executory and can no longer
to reviewed by a higher administrative agency or by the courts.
Appeal in contested cases
► Decisions of quasi-administrative bodies maybe appealed to higher administrative bodies, where the
law or regulation so provides. The appellant should assign errors committed, the general rule being
that the appellate body may not pass upon errors not assigned. However, the appellate body has broad
discretionary power to waive the lack of assignment of errors and consider errors not assigned, as in
the following instances.
1.) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter
2.) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the
contemplation of law
3.) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a
just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid
dispensing piecemeal justice;
4.) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters
of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which
the lower court ignored,
5.) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned
6.) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question
properly assigned is dependent.
Administrative review
► Review is a reconsideration or re-examination of a decision or ruling of a subordinate officer by a superior
officer or higher administrative agency. The power of review is exercised to determine whether it is necessary
to correct the acts of a subordinate and to see to it that he perform his duties in accordance with law. Review
by a superior officer or department head may be undertaken motu proprio if the decision has not yet become
final, in exercise of his control power over the acts of a subordinate. He may also undertake the review when
the aggrieved party appeals the decision to him, pursuant to the agency's rules of procedure.
► The general rule is that evidence not formally submitted during the hearing before an administrative
agency may not be submitted, for the first time, on appeal and the reviewing administrative body may not,
therefore, consider it.
► One exception to this rule is that when an issue was not raised before the lower administrative agency and
evidence on connection therewith was not accordingly presented, but which issue was resolved by the
latter in its decision, the adverse party, on appeal, was entitled to present rebuttal evidence on said issue,
and the refusal of the reviewing agency to consider such rebuttal evidence on the ground that the same
was not formally offered during the hearing constituted grave abuse of discretion and left decision on
appeal without substantial basis to support it. Where the attention of a reviewing agency has been called to
the fact that appellant's position paper and other evidence had been disregarded by lower administrative
agency, which, if before it, would enable it to decide the appeal judiciously, elementary principles of fair play
required that the reviewing agency should have ordered the elevation of the entire records of the case to it or
remanded the case consonant with the requirements of due process.
Presumption of legality
► The legal presumption that official duty has been duly performed is particularly strong as
regards acts of quasi-judicial agencies in connection with the enforcement of laws
affecting particular fields of activity, the proper regulation or promotion of which
requires a technical or special training, aside from a good knowledge and grasp of the
overall conditions relevant to said field.
► However, there is no presumption of regularity of any administrative action which results
in depriving a taxpayer of his property through tax sale. It is an exception to rule that
administrative proceedings are presumed to be regular.
Res judicata
► It has been held that the "doctrine of res judicata certainly applies to adversary administrative
proceedings.
► The doctrine of res judicata applies to decision or orders of administrative agencies that have became
final. Such decisions or orders are conclusive upon the rights of the affected parties as though the
same had been rendered by the court of general jurisdiction. The rule which forbids the reopening of
a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-
judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction
as the judgments of courts having general judicial powers.
a.) In Brillantes v. Castro, we sustained the dismissal of an action by a trial court on the basis of a
prior administrative determination of the same case by the Wage Administrative Service, and
applied the principle of res judicata.
b.) In Abad v. NLRC we applied the related doctrine of stare decisis in the holding that the prior
determination that certain jobs at the Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. were project employment was
binding in another case involving another group of employees of the same company.
c.) In Nasipit Lumber Co., this Court clarified toward the end of its opinion that the doctrine of res
judicata applies to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative
powers."
When res judicata disregarded
► The rule that once a litigant's rights have been adjudicated in a valid judgment by a competent court
he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try is subject to certain
exceptions, as when there are supervening events which make it imperative, in the higher interest of
justice, to modify said judgment to harmonize the disposition with the prevailing circumstances,
especially where no private individual will be financially prejudiced by overturning the final judgment.
► The rule on res judicata may also be overlooked where the same has been waived or has not been
timely raised as a defense, where the application of the principle, under the particular facts
obtaining, would amount to a denial of justice or a bar to a vindication of a legitimate grievance.
► The principle of res judicata may be disregarded if its application would involve the sacrifice of
justice to technicality.
► The principle of res judicata does not operate between persons who, having been co-parties
(defendants or plaintiffs) in the first case, are opposing parties in the second case. The exception
to the rule is where the individual claims of such co-parties in the first case were raised in issue,
litigated and determined, res judicata applies to such co-parties.
► A judgment dismissing an action because of the pendency of another action between the same parties
and for the same cause does not operate as res judicata because the dismissal is not a judgment on the
merit.
Power to issue writ of execution to enforce judgment
► Does an administrative agency clothed with quasi-judicial power to hear and adjudge cases
have the authority to order execution of its final orders or decisions?
► In GSIS vs. Civil Service Commission, the SC sustained the power of the Civil Service
Commission to order execution of its final decision issued in the exercise of its quasi-judicial or
adjudicatory authority, as there is no law which denies its authority
► For instance, as PD. No. 957 has granted the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board the
jurisdiction to hear and decide questions relating to the sale and purchase of subdivision lots
and to award damages in connection therewith, its final decision ordering a subdivision
developer to deliver the title to the lot buyer and to pay the latter moral damages and
attorney's fees can be enforced by its issuing a writ of execution addressed to the sheriff to
implement the same. Unless the law vesting quasi-judicial power to an agency provides
otherwise, the agency promulgating its decision has the implied power to issue a writ of
execution to enforce its decision. The writ of execution must conform to the judgment
which is to be executed, as it may not vary or go beyond the terms thereof. Thus, it may
not include a person as liable therein, where he is not a party to the case and the judgment is
against other persons. Where the writ is not in harmony with the judgment, it is invalid.