TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) growing complexity of modern life - as

society gets more complex, there are more

I. Introduction things to regulate
II. Control of Administrative Action 2) the multiplication of the subject of
governmental regulation
III. Powers and Functions of Administrative
Agencies 3) the increased difficulty of administering the
law
IV. Administrative Procedure
VI. Judicial Review of Administrative
Decision Constitutional status of admin. agencies
VII. Modes of Judicial Review  the admin. agency does not strictly belong to
one branch.
VIII. Extent of Judicial Review
 The agency does not constitute a 4th branch
IX. Enforcement of Agency Action
of government because the constitutional
PART I. scheme (separation of powers) only allows 3
INTRODUCTION branches of government.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - that branch of public Role of Admin. Agencies

law dealing with the doctrines and principles Residual Powers
governing the powers and procedures of  the powers given to the three branches spill
administrative agencies including especially over because of the 3 shortfalls. There is a
judicial review of administrative action. need for a body which would act as a
catching mechanism, otherwise, the three
An ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY is any branches would collapse. The AA supports
governmental authority other than a court or the trichotomy of powers.
legislative body performing rule-making or
adjudicatory functions. How do these agencies come into being?
a) by statute
“AGENCY” – includes: b) by the constitution
 any department, bureau, office, commission, c) by Executive orders - usually fact-finding
authority or officer of the National agencies
Government authorized by law or executive
order to make rules, issue licenses, grant
rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; CREATED CREATED BY THE
BY CONGRESS CONSTITUTION
 government corporations with respect to
function regulating private right, privilege, or 1. can be modified 1. perform more
occupation or business; by congress sensitive functions
 officials in the exercise of disciplinary power 2. may be altered 2. – underscoring the
as provided by law. or abolished independence of
(Sec. 2 (1), Book VII, Admin Code of 1987) the agency thus,
insulate it from
political pressure
Powers of an administrative agency
a) rule-making
 The Chief Executive exercises CONTROL
b) adjudicatory
over agencies and offices which perform
c) licensing (permits) rule-making / adjudicatory functions.
d) price/rate-fixing
e) implementing/executory  If the agency is created by Congress -
consider the law that created it. If the law is
Procedure silent as to the control which the President
 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS is the may exercise, the President can only
minimum requirement SUPERVISE, i.e., to see to it that the laws
are faithfully executed.
Factors which gave rise to admin. agencies
Why are administrative agencies necessary?  effective only as an aid in legislation and
 Administrative agencies are necessary due cannot serve the need for constant
to the inadequacies of the executive- regulation
legislative-judicial trichotomy. d) Prescription of legislative standards
 The 3 great branches of government lack:  ineffective because the standards should be
(1) time; (2) expertise; and (3) organizational flexible and those who make the standards
aptitude for governmental supervision. lack the expertise. The standards must be
EFFECTIVE, SUFFICIENT.
The doctrine of separation of powers:  Most of the time, Congress is not definite
 To prevent absolutism. because of (a) varying conditions and (b)
 Under the doctrine of separation of powers, differences in the need for regulation
The Supreme Court cannot assume the
administrative function of supervisory control e) Prescription of minimum procedural
over executive officials. requirements
 In Noblejas v. Teehankee (1963), the  There should be a shift to Administrative
Supreme Court struck down Noblejas’ claim standards which allows the agencies to
that the Commissioner of Land Registration, come up with the standards themselves.
being entitled to the same compensation,  This can be effected in these ways :
emoluments & privileges as a CFI judge, 1) modify the doctrine
can only be investigated and suspended in 2) procedural due process
the same manner, and not by the Secretary
of Justice.)
 Congress can prescribe minimum
 Members of the Supreme Court cannot sit procedural requirements which have a
as a board of arbitrators. (Manila Electric general applicability to all agencies. But
Co. v. Pasay Transpo, 1932) even with this, there are sill problems,
 A judge cannot become a member of a namely;
provincial committee on justice which 1) Agencies are not bound by the technical
performs administrative functions. (In Re: rules of procedure
Rodolfo U. Manzano (1988)
2) agencies need flexibility to act

PART II.
 These minimum procedural requirements
CONTROL OF may be found in Book 7 of the Admin. Code
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION of 1987.

CONTROL Substantial evidence - such relevant evidence

 the power to change, modify, alter decisions which a reasonable mind will accept as
of subordinates adequate to support a conclusion
SUPERVISION
 power to oversee B. Executive Control
 Executive power is vested in the President
A. Legislative Control (Art. VII, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution)
 RULE: The President shall have control of
Ways of exercising control by Congress all the executive departments, bureaus and
a) Abolition offices. He shall ensure that the laws be
 isn’t effective because the admin. agencies faithfully executed. (Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987
are needed. Constitution)
b) Appropriation  EXCEPTIONS: In the case of agencies
 isn’t effective since appropriations are created by the legislature (e.g. NLRC, BIR,
always given. If no appropriation is given, LTFRB), one must check the enabling law
the public would suffer. regarding Congress’ intention regarding this.
c) Investigatory  If the law is silent, the President cannot
exercise control but merely supervision.
 However, in cases involving agencies under 2. Standards - express or implied (Edu v.
the executive branch, the President has Ericta); written administrative standards
control. (White v. Roughton)

C. Judicial Control What are the matters that Congress cannot

 Judicial review of administrative actions delegate?
D. Ombudsman  Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v. Auditor-
 Investigates and prosecutes General)
 All elective and appointive officials, including  Imposition of criminal penalties (US v.
cabinet members, GOCC’s and local Barrias)
government are within his jurisdiction.  Designation of a particular act as a crime
 Those who may be removed only by (People v. Maceren)
impeachment are not within his jurisdiction  Creation of standards on the part of the
 The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an agency
exercise of judgment or discretion by an
agency or officer upon whom that judgment Requisites for a valid delegation (Pelaez v.
or discretion is lawfully vested, esp. where Auditor General)
the matter involves basically technical a) the law must be complete in itself; must set
matters coming under the special technical forth a policy to be executed
knowledge and training of the agency / b) must fix a standard, the limits of which are
officer. (Concerned Officials of MWSS v. sufficiently determinate or determinable, to
Vasquez (1995), where the Ombudsman which the delegate must conform in the
was held to have interfered with a bid-and- performance of his functions.
award contract.)
 The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to  The standard may be express or implied
initiate an investigation into the alleged (Edu v. Ericta)
delay in the disposition of a judicial case. It
 The standard does not have to be found in
is the Supreme Court which has
the law being challenged. It may be
administrative supervision over all courts
embodied in other statutes on the same
and the personnel thereof. (Dolalas v.
subject matter as that of the challenged
Office of the Ombudsman, 1996)
legislation. [Chongbian v. Orbos (1995).
Here, the challenged law was the ARMM
PART III. Organic Act. The standard was found in the
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF Reorganization Act.]
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Examples of sufficient standards include:
A. Legislative Functions  Assumption by Labor Minister over strikes
1. Non-Delegation Doctrine affecting national interest (Free Telephone
 theoretically puts a check on the legislature Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and
from abdicating its duty by delegating its Employment, 1981)
power to make law. This is a corollary to the  Reorganization of administrative regions in
doctrine of Separation of Powers. ARMM (Chiongbian v. Orbos, 1995)
 the later attitude of the SC is more liberal Standard may be implied from other laws,
and is in favor of sustaining the validity of e.g. RA 5435 (simplicity, economy,
the delegation. efficiency)
 Courts have realized the necessity of  Fixing of rates by National
delegation of powers - broad or vague Telecommunications Commission
standards are sufficient (Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 1989) The standards
used were public safety, public interest,
1. Policies - limits, boundaries, complete in reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates
itself, leaves nothing to the discretion; may (case to case basis)
be in another statute (Chiongbian v. Orbos)  WON rate-fixing is legislative or quasi-
judicial
 INNOVATIONS IN BOOK VII
Legislative Quasi-judicial 1) date of effectivity : 15 days after filing with
UP Law Center
 No notice and  Notice and
hearing required hearing - publication - submit to UP Law Center
unless the law required a) Quarter bulletin
requires  To be able to b) up-to-date codification
present  EO 200 allowed publication I na newspaper
evidence and of general circulation
prove the  Art. 2 NCC - 15 days after publication in the
possible OG
adverse  Adm. Code - 15 days after filing
effects on its
financial 2) Public Participation (Sec. 9)
viability
 publish proposed rules and afford interested
parties the opportunity to submit views.
 In Santiago v. COMELEC, RA 6735 is  What is sad is the law uses the phrase, “As
incomplete, inadequate or wanting in far as practicable” makes it look like it’s not
essential terms and conditions insofar as mandatory. Can be an excuse.
initiative on amendments to the Constitution
is concerned. COMELEC resolution is void
Public Participation
as there are no standards at all, no
legislative policy.  To make a determination of facts/evidence
 In Panama Refining Co. v, Ryan, for 1) formal - trial type procedure
subordinate rules to be valid, such must be 2) informal - more desirable and more
within prescribed limits of the statute effective
creating or granting such authority. - public hearings, presentation of
 In A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., the papers and memo, resolutions,
legislature cannot make a sweeping workshops, conferences, seminars,
delegation of legislative power. dialogues)

2. Permissible Delegation Rate Fixing - even more specific

 The Legislature must establish the standard;  2 weeks before rate fixing, 1st hearing is
AAs only to make subordinate rules MANDATORY
 refers to ALL RATES
a. Ascertainment of fact (Lovina v. Moreno)
b. Filling in of details (Alegre v. Collector of  Two ideas involving rate-fixing
Customs) 1) proposed rate is published
2) must have public hearing
3. Administrative Rule making
 Administrative rule-making or subordinate  Problem with not following requirements
legislation - aggrieved party can always can go to
 Valid as long as germane, consistent, court
implements the law - the rate can be voided
 Normative and prescriptive in character  Rule-making
 has the force and effect of law; affects - an agency process for the formulation,
substantive rights amendment or repeal of rule.
 must not go beyond the standards
prescribed by the law. Limits on rule-making power:
 General in application a. authorized by law (Olsen v. Aldanese)
b. must not amend the law (Syman v.
Jacinto)
 c. must not define a criminal act (People v.  the law itself must so declare the act as
Maceren) punishable
d. must be germane to the purpose of the  penal statutes exclusive domain of the
law which it was meant to implement legislature, cannot be delegated
(Toledo v. CSC)  In People v. Maceren, it was held that
e. must not restrict, expand, diminish law "Administrative rules and regulations cannot
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. amend or modify or expand the law by
CA; Land Bank v. CA; GMCR v. Bell including, prohibiting or punishing certain
Telecoms) acts which the law does not even define as
f. action of the AA to be set aside if there a criminal act."
is an error of law, a grave abuse of
power or lack of jurisdiction or grave Interpretative rules
abuse of discretion clearly conflicting  interprets the law enacted by the legislative
with either the letter or the spirit of the  does not and cannot control decisions as to
law (Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA) the proper construction of the statute; not
binding but generally or in particular
Publication and effectivity circumstances it is given great weight and
 Every agency to file with the UP Law Center has a very persuasive influence on the Court
three (3) certified copies of every rule  Interpretative Rule can be found erroneous
adopted by it. (Bk. VII, Sec. 3) by the successor (Hilado v. Collector of
 Date of effectivity of rule: 15 days from the Internal Revenue)
date of filing (Bk. VII, Sec. 4)  Administrative interpretation merely advisory
 EXCEPTIONS: (Victorias v. SSC)
1. different date is fixed by law or  Wrong construction of the law cannot give
specified in the rule rise to a vested right. (Hilado v. CIR)
2. in cases of imminent danger to  Action of the AA will be set aside if there
public health, safety and welfare, was error of law, or abuse of power, or lack
 Publication is indispensable of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion
 Publication essential especially if general in clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of
character a legislative enactment. (Peralta v. CSC)
 Rule on publication of administrative  The power to hear a case can be delegated,
issuances different from the Tañada ruling but not the power to decide. (American
 Tanada ruling: Publication in O.G. or Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, 1975)
newspaper of general circulation is required
for effectivity of administrative rules and  The power to decide can be delegated
regulations. provided that the power to delegate such
 What need not be published: function was not withheld expressly or
1. interpretative regulations impliedly. (Realty Exchange v. Sendino,
1994, where the issue was whether the
2. internal regulations ( regulating only
HLURB could split itself into divisions when
personnel of agency
hearing cases instead of meeting en banc.)
3. letters of instructions issued by
 NOTE: Is it not implied from the fact that the
administrative superior to their
Board was constituted as a collegial body
subordinates
that they were meant to decide as a collegial
body? (Hence an implied prohibition on the
 In the Admin Code of 1987: Filing of copy of delegation of quasi-judicial functions.)
regulations is sufficient for effectivity
Fixing of Rates, Wages and Prices
Penal Regulations  A rate is any charge to the public for a
 must be published in full text (Sec. 6 (2), service open to all and upon the same
Book 7, Admin Code) terms, including individual or joint rates,
 If a rule is penal in character, it is required tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as
that the rule is published before it takes well as communication, mileage,
effect. (People v. Que Po Lay) kilometreage and other special rates which
 shall be imposed by law or regulation to be
observed and followed by any person. (Sec. Licensing Function
2 (3), Book VII, Admin Code)  Licensing includes agency process involving
 AA to publish or circulate notices of grant, renewal, denial, revocation,
proposed rules and afford interested parties suspension, annulment, withdrawal,
the opportunity to submit their views prior to limitation, amendment, modification or
the adoption of any rule. (Bk. VII Sec 9(1)) conditioning of a license. (GR-DR-SAM-C)
 To be valid, proposed rates must be  License includes the whole or any part of
published in a newspaper of general any agency permit, certificate, passport,
circulation at least 2 weeks before the first clearance, approval, registration, charter,
hearing thereon (Bk. VII, Sec 9(2)). membership, statutory exemption or other
 Function delegated to AAs because the form of permission, or regulation of the
legislature has not the time, the knowledge exercise of a right or privilege. (PCPC-
nor the means necessary to handle the ARCM-SPR)
matter efficiently.  When the grant, renewal, denial or
 Need for dispatch, for flexibility and for cancellation of a license is required to be
technical know-how better met by AAs. preceded by notice and hearing, it cannot be
withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled
without notice and hearing (Sec 17(1), Bk,
Legislative Quasi-judicial
VII)
 no license may be withdrawn, suspended,
Extent of Rate applies to Rate directed revoked or annulled without notice and
applicabi all only at 1 entity hearing (Sec 17(2), Bk VII)
-lity EXCEPTIONS:
Notice & May be Absolutely 1. in cases of willful violation of
hearing dispensed with necessary pertinent laws, rules and regulations
unless the law 2. when public security, health or
provides safety require otherwise
otherwise
 Where the licensee has made timely and
sufficient application for the renewal of a
 PSC not authorized to delegate power to fix license, the existing license shall not expire
rates to a common carrier or other public until the application shall have been finally
service. Power to fix rates, being a determined by the agency. (Sec. 18, Bk, VII)
delegated power cannot be delegated  A license is always revocable. (Gonzalo Sy
further (Panay Autobus v. Philippine Trading)
Railway)
 Rate-fixing must be exercised by the agency B. Judicial Functions
directly. The power to fix rates, which is a
delegated power, cannot be delegated
further (KMU v. Garcia) 1. Power to issue subpoena and declare
contempt
Subpoena
Principle on rate fixing and requirement of
notice and hearing Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions
have the power to issue subpoena?
 if the rate to be fixed applies to all utilities in
general --- LEGISLATIVE in character   Yes. As long as in exercise of quasi-
Notice and hearing may be dispensed with judicial – even if charter is silent. Power is
unless the law requires otherwise. vested in the AA in the Admin Code (see
Sec 13 Bk VII)
 If the rate to be fixed applies to one entity --
QUASI-JUDICIAL in character  notice and  Test for valid enforcement of subpoena:
hearing required. 1. w/in authority of the agency ( expressly
(Vigan Electric v. PSC; Philcomsat v. Alcuaz) authorized by law )
2. demand is not too indefinite – subpoena
duces tecum
3. info is reasonably relevant
 (Evangelista v. Jarencio) 3. Imposition of fines and penalties
Do agencies have the power to impose fines
 rationale: power to adjudicate will be and penalties?
rendered inutile if can’t subpoena  Yes. In the case of Oceanic Steam
Contempt Navigation v. Stranahan, the Court laid
Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions down the tests for the validity of imposition
have the power to cite for contempt? of fines
 No. Power must be expressly granted in the  Test for validity of imposition:
agency’s charter (ex. PD 902-A creating the 1. subject matter is within the control of
SEC) Congress
 If no law, must invoke the aid of RTC 2. penalty is administrative or civil and not
 Rationale: power to punish for contempt criminal which would involve deprrvation of
inherently judicial property
 The power to cite for contempt can only be 3. power must be expressly conferred to an
used in connection with judicial and quasi- administrative agency; power cannot be
judicial functions and with ministerial exercised by implication
functions. (Guevara v. COMELEC)
 The fixing of penalties for criminal offense is
2. Warrants of Arrest, Administrative the exercise of legislative power which
Searches cannot be delegated to a subordinate
Can administrative agencies issue warrants of authority. (U.S. v. Barrios)
arrest?
 No. In Salazar v. Achacoso, it was held that C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of
under the 1987 Constitution only a judge Standards
may issue search or arrest warrants.  a reiteration of the non-delegation doctrine
EXCEPTION: in cases of deportation of  attitude of the courts is liberal in sustaining
illegal and undesirable aliens following a the standards even if such are broad
FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION, for the  The ff. have been held to be sufficient
purpose of deportation standards:

 In Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, the 1. Interest of law and order (Rubi v. Provincial
two ways of deporting are through the: Board of Mindoro, 1919)
a.) Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37 2. Public interest (People v. Rosenthal, 1939)
of CA 618 3. Justice, equity and substantial merits of the
b.) President after due investigation pursuant to case (International Hardwood v. Pangil
Sec 69 of Revised Administrative Code. Federation, 1940)
- but no grounds needed – has sole 4. What is moral, educational or amusing
discretion under international law (Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission,
1914)
Can immigration authorities issue warrants of 5. Adequate and efficient instruction (PACU v.
arrest against undesirable aliens? Secretary, 1955)
 YES, but only if issuance is pursuant to a 6. Sound and reasonable discretion (implied
final order of deportation. Immigration standard) (Wisconsin Inspection Bureau v.
authorities cannot issue warrants for Whitman, 1928)
purposes of investigation, as the 7. Promotion of simplicity, economy or
Constitution provides that only judges can efficiency (Cervantes v. Auditor-General,
issue warrants to determine probable cause. 1952)
(Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 1963) 8. Maintenance of monetary stability,
Note that the Constitution does not promotion of rising level of production and
distinguish between warrants in a criminal real income (People v. Joliffe, 1959)
case and administrative warrants in
administrative proceedings.
 What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient
standard. (Burstyn v. Wilson, 1952)
 2. Notice and Hearing
PART IV.  No Notice and hearing requirement in case
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE of a mere conference (Equitable v. NLRC)
 Power to hear may be delegated but not the
A. Rules of Procedure power to decide (American Tobacco Co. v.
B. Due Process Director of Patents)

1. Cardinal Primary Rights When required

As held in Ang Tibay v. CIR, the seven cardinal a. When law specifically requires notice
primary rights are: and hearing (Halili v. PSC; Bautista v.
WCC; Equitable Banking Corp v. NLRC)
1. Right to a hearing
b. When it affects a person’s status and
2. Right to have the evidence considered
liberty (Commissioner of Immigration v.
3. Decision must be supported by evidence Fernandez)
4. Substantial evidence
5. Transparency of records  If administrative action is based on an
6. Independent consideration of the judge undisputed fact and not a quasi-judicial
7. Decision must reveal relevant issues function, notice and hearing may be
dispensed with.
 absence of one of these 7 rights is sufficient
to question the proceeding When not required
 Presence of a party at a trial is not always  urgent reasons
the essence of due process. All that the law  when discretion is exercised by an officer
requires is that the parties be given notice of vested with it upon an undisputed fact
trial, an opportunity to be heard. (Asprec v. (Suntay v. People)
Itchon)  if it involves the exercise of discretion and
 The right of a party to confront and cross- there is no grave abuse of discretion (De
examine opposing witnesses is a Bisschop v. Galang)
fundamental right which is part of due  when rules to govern future conduct of
process. If without his fault, his right to persons or enterprises, unless law provides
cross- examine is violated, he is entitled to otherwise (Taxicab Operators of Manila v.
have the direct examination stricken out. Board Of Transportation)
(Bachrach Motors v. CIR)
 in the valid exercise of police power
 The law, in prescribing a process of appeal (Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA)
to a higher level, contemplates that the
reviewing officer is a person different from
the one who issued the appealed decision. 3. Form and Promulgation of Judgment
Otherwise, the review becomes a farce; it is  Decision should state:
rendered meaningless. (Zambales 1. facts
Chromitev. CA; Anzaldo v. Clave; Rivera v. 2. issues
CSC) 3. law
 Evidence on record must be fully disclosed (Ang Tibay vs CIR)
to the parties. (American Inter-Fashion
Corporation v. Office of the President)  Normally, this will be followed by the agency
 In Matthews v. Eldridge, the U.S. Supreme to the letter. However, there are times when
Court enumerated the 3 factors determining there is substantial compliance (therefore
constitutional sufficiency of administrative not violative of due process)
procedures:  It is not necessary that the order make its
1. private interest that will be affected own discussion of the evidence and the
2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest findings of fact if the court is satisfied with
and probable value of safeguards the report of the examiner which already
3. public interest vis-à-vis government costs contains the discussions of the findings and
conclusions. The rule is otherwise when the
court disagrees with the findings of the
 examiner in which case the court must substantial that there are reasonable
specify and discuss the reasons for their grounds to believe that the claim is correct.
dissent. (Indias v. Phil. Iron Mines) (Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa)
 The requirement that all decisions should  The HLURB has jurisdiction over specific
contain a statement of facts and the law on performance, annulment of mortgage and all
which it is based is only applicable to other matters which pertain to sound real
decisions of courts of record, not to quasi- estate practice. (Union Bank v. HLURB)
judicial agencies. However, the due process  The CAB is authorized by RA 776 to issue
clause applies with regards to procedural temporary operating permit or CPCN. (PAL
due process. (Valladolid v. Inchiong) v. CAB)
 If a power to decide is granted to a specific
authority, it can’t abdicate from this
responsibility by delegating the duty to
decide the case. It must personally decide
D. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
such. It can delegate the power to hear but
Arising from the same facts
not the power to decide. (American Tobacco
v. Director of Patents)
 The Board’s act of dividing itself into  The difference in the proceeding (one
divisions of three is valid because under EO administrative, the other criminal) is not legal
648 the Board can adopt rules of procedure incompatibility but merely physical
for the conduct of its business and perform incompatibility. These 2 proceedings are
such functions necessary for the effective independent of each other involving different
accomplishment of its functions. The power causes of action and therefore can proceed
to delegate a particular function can be simultaneously. (Galang v. CA)
implied from the power of AA to issue rules  Matters that are material in administrative
and regulations necessary to carry out its case are not necessarily relevant in criminal
functions. (Realty Exchange v. Sendino) case. There are excuses, defenses and
attenuating circumstances which are
relevant in an administrative proceeding
C. Jurisdiction
which are not admissible in trial in crim
 Refer to the enabling statute creating the cases. (Villanos v. Sabido)
agency, especially its powers and
 The trial court had no jurisdiction to order
jurisdiction
reinstatement since the judgment in a
 Jurisdiction is created and conferred by law criminal case is limited to acquittal or
 Pendency of a criminal case will not divest conviction with accessory penalties. Only
the Deportation Board of its jurisdiction over the NLRC could have ordered reinstatement
undesirable aliens in a deportation with back wages. (PNR v. Domingo)
proceeding. (Go Tek v. Deportation Board)  The criminal case for falsification is entirely
 The Collector of Customs constitutes a distinct from the administrative proceedings
competent tribunal when sitting in forfeiture conducted by the COMELEC against the
proceedings. (Dela Fuente v. De Veyra) petitioner although both arose from the
 CHR can only investigate violations of civil- same set of facts. The dismissal of the
political rights. It cannot try and decide criminal complaint against Tan is not a bar
cases as ordinary courts of justice, or even to the administrative proceeding. (Tan v.
quasi-judicial bodies do. (Cariño v. CHR) COMELEC)
 CHR cannot issue cease and desist order
since the CHR can only investigate. The E. Rules of Evidence
power to issue cease and desist order is  AAs not bound by technical rules of
reserved for quasi-judicial & judicial powers evidence but due process must be observed
(Simon, Jr. v. CHR)
 RATIO: to allow AA to act with speed and
 The Bureau of Immigration has the primary flexibility
jurisdiction or exclusive authority to try and
What is the pervasive principle?
hear cases against an alleged alien.
Judicial intervention should be granted only  Technical rules of evidence and procedure
in cases where claim of citizenship is so do not strictly apply to administrative
 proceeding, but this does not mean they can  Where law has delineated a procedure by
disregard certain due process requirements. which administrative appeal or remedy could
be effected, the same should be followed
 AAs may act on its own and use methods before recourse to judicial action can be
which may best constitute substantial initiated
evidence. (Estate of Buan v. Pambusco)  REASONS:
 The SC not required to examine the proof de 1. legal : law prescribes a procedure
novo. The only function of the SC is to 2. practical : to give agency a chance to
determine WON there is evidence before the correct its own error
Commission upon which its decision might 3. for reasons of comity and convenience
be reasonably be based. (Rizal Light Co. v.
Municipality of Rizal) EXCEPTIONS TO RULE
 AAs not bound by the strict or technical rules 1. purely legal question (Pascual v. Prov.
of evidence governing court proceedings. In Bd.)
the broad interest of justice, the ERB may, in
2. patently illegal act - lack of jurisdiction
any particular manner, except itself from
these rules and apply such suitable 3. time is of the essence and will result into
procedure as shall promote the objectives of nullification of claim (Quasha v. Sec;
the order. (Maceda v. ERB) Alzate v. Aldana)
4. would be oppressive and unreasonable
(Cipriano v. Marcelino)
PART V.
5. remedy only persuasive (Corpuz v.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
Cuaderno)
DECISIONS
6. estoppel by laches (Republic (PCGG) v.
SB)
A. Factors Affecting Finality of
7. irreparable damage and injury will be
Administrative Decisions
suffered by the party (De Lara v.
1. Question of constitutionality Clorivel)
2. history of statute 8. private land in land case proceedings
3. nature of problem (question of law or fact) 9. not a plain, speedy, adequate remedy
4. finality of decision (non quieta movere) 10. doctrine of qualified political agency -
alter ego
 Silence of Congress should not be 11. blatant violation of due process
interpreted as indicating a legislative intent
to preclude judicial review. (Uy v. Palomar)
 In the case of Republic (PCGG) v. SB, the
Court held that failure to observe the
GEN RULE: Courts refuse to interfere with doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
proceedings undertaken by AA remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of
EXCEPTIONS: the Court. The only effect of non-compliance
(1) AA has gone beyond statutory with this rule is that it will deprive the
authority complainant of a cause of action, which is a
(2) AA exercised unconstitutionall ground for a motion to dismiss. If not
powers invoked at the proper time, this ground is
(3) AA clearly acted arbitrarily and deemed waived and the court can take
without regard to his duty cognizance of the case and try it. In this
(4) Grave abuse of discretion case, seven years is hardly within "the
proper time".
(5) Decision vitiated by fraud,
imposition or mistake  The rule on non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies, being based on sound public
(Manuel v. Villena)
policy and considerations, has
EXCEPTIONS:
B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (i) where there is estoppel on the part of
the party invoking the doctrine;
(ii) where the challenged administrative act  LEGAL STANDING means a personal and
is patently illegal amounting to lack of substantial interest in the case such that the
jurisdiction; party has sustained or will sustain direct
(iii) where there is unreasonable delay or injury as a result of the gov’t. act that is
official inaction that will irretrievably being challenged. (Joya v. PCGG; :Lozada
prejudice the complainant; and v. Comelec; Kilosbayan v. Guingona)
(iv) where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be  Types of Standing:
decided by the courts of justice. 1. provided by law
The Rep. v. SB case falls under (I) and 2. taxpayers' suit
(ii). 3. class suit
4. suit as members of the Congress
C. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary
Resort  If the law specifies in an exclusive manner
 doctrine applies when there is concurrence as to who may appeal – those who are not
of jurisdiction (regular court and AA) included have no personality to sue. (Ursal v
 Courts will not intervene if the question to be VTA; Acting Collector v. CTA)
resolved is one which requires the expertise  One having no right or interest to protect
of the AA and the legislative intent on the cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as
matter is to have uniformity in ruling party-plaintiff in an action. (Joya v. PCGG)
 EXCEPTIONS:  The issue of standing is a procedural
1. not within competence of the AA technicality which may be waived if the issue
2. issue does not require technical of is of transcendental importance to the
expertise of AA public. (Kilosbayan v. Guingona)
 The Court differentiated concepts of
Criteria for the application of the Doctrine as “standing” and “real party-in-interest” and
laid down in the Texas and Pacific v. Abilene held that Kilosbayan is not a real party in
Case: interest because it was not a party to the
(1) there is concurrent jurisdiction contract. (Kilosbayan v. Morato)
(2) the agency has the necessary expertise to
competently rule on the issues (technical Tests of standing as laid down in Assn of
expertise is crucial to resolution) Data Processing Service Organization v.
(3) In line with the legislative intent /objectives Camp
of the law (e.g. uniform rates) 1) Test of injury in fact (economic injury)
2) Whether or not arguably in the zone of
 If case requires expertise, specialized skills interest sought to be protected by the statute
and knowledge of AA because technical
matters or intricate questions of fact are Three elements of the constitutional
involved, then relief must first be obtained in minimum requirements of standing:
an administrative proceeding before a (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in
remedy will be supplied by the courts even fact” – an invasion of a legally-protected
though the matter is within the proper interest which is
jurisdiction of the court. Application of the (a) concrete and particularized and
doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the (b) “actual or imminent, not conjectural or
case but only its SUSPENSION till after the hypothetical”
matters within the competence of the AA are
(2) there must be a causal connection between
threshed out and determined. (Industrial
the injury and the conduct complained of –
Enterprises v. CA)
the injury has to be “fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant, and not
D. Standing to Challenge the result of the independent action of some
third party not before the court.”
(3) it must be likely as opposed to merely Decisions of the COA, COMELEC, and CSC
“speculative”, that the injury will be may be brought to the SC on CERTIORARI
redressed by a favorable decision. within 30 days from receipt of copy of decision
(Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife)  The constitution uses the word may,
meaning review is not mandatory by only
E. Ripeness discretionary.

Purpose of the doctrine of ripeness BP 129

(according to Abbott Laboratories v.  Authority of CA to review decisions of quasi-
Gardner): judicial agencies is EXCLUSIVE (if such is
1. to prevent courts, thru avoidance of listed in law or if its charter so indicates)
premature adjudication, from entangling  If it is not listed, its decisions can be
themselves in abstract disagreements over reviewed by the RTC through the special
administrative policies civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
2. to protect agencies from judicial interference
until decision has been formalized and Book VII, Section 25, Administrative Code of
effect felt in a concrete way or the 1987
imminence of the effect is demonstrable  Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial
2-fold test (must concur): review in accordance with this chapter and
(1) fitness of the issue for judicial decision applicable laws. (par. 1)
(question of law, not policy-making) WHO MAY SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW:
(2) hardship to the parties of withholding such  Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by
court action an agency decision. (par.2)
WHEN TO APPEAL:
General ripeness consideration tests  Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a
according to National Automatic Laundry copy (par. 4)
and Cleaning Council v. Shultz: HOW:
1. WON there is congressional intent  File petition for review (par.4)
negativing judicial review WHERE TO FILE:
2. Possibility of courts entangling themselves  In the court specified by statute or, in the
in abstract disagreement over administrative absence thereof, in any court of competent
policies due to premature adjudication jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions
3. Fitness of issue for judicial determination on venue of the Rules of Court. (par. 6)
and hardship to parties of withholding
consideration  Petition for Review - question of fact and law
 Must comply with
 The time period
 Docket fees
PART VI.  Notice
MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95
Judicial Review (Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Procedure)
 WON it is available is the threshold issue  Grants CA with exclusive jurisdiction to
 If not available - end of litigation review decisions of 19 AAs.
 If available - determine the specific  Excludes the NLRC
mode of review which must be invoked  Mentions only one constitutional body: CSC
 Listing not exclusive - ejusdem generis
 SC retains the special civil action for
A. Provisions of Law certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
Art. 9A, Sec 7, Constitution:  As to AAs exercising quasi-judicial functions,
there is an underlying power in the courts to
 scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions  Is it possible to ask for a writ of mandamus
of law and jurisdiction even though no right against an agency exercising discretionary
of review is given by the statute. (Meralco powers?
Securities v. CBAA)  Yes, when the writ of mandamus is in
order to compel the agency to exercise
B. Certiorari or use its discretion but it will not
Two Kinds of Certiorari prescribe the action to be taken by the
1. Simple or Ordinary (Rule 45) - errors of board/officer (Policarpio v. Phil Veterans
judgment; questions of law Board)
2. Special Civil Action (Rule 65) - errors of  If there is a capricious exercise of such
jurisdiction; discretion, the remedy is CERTIORARI
- SC has original jurisdiction, concurrent
with the RTC WHEN IS MANDAMUS NOT PROPER:
 Purpose: to nullify or set aside the 1. to control or review the exercise of discretion
proceedings of a public officer (Blanco v. Board of
 Requisites: Examiners)
1. a) Lack of jurisdiction or 2. to compel issuance of visa (Ng Gioc Liu v.
Secretary of Foreign Affairs)
b) grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction 3. to enforce contractual obligations (Province
of Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission)
2. There is no other plain, speedy, adequate
remedy 4. where there is no clear legal right as the
source of the "right" is not authorized (Cruz
3. Agency or tribunal is performing judicial or
v. CA)
quasi-judicial functions
5. to compel tax assessment not due (Meralco
Securities v. Savellano)
C. Prohibition
Requisites:
E. Declaratory Relief
1. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
Function:
discretion
1. interested under a deed, will, contract or
2. No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
written instrument affected by any
3. Agency or tribunal is performing quasi- statute
judicial and ministerial functions
2. to determine any question of
4. The act to be enjoined is yet to be construction or validity arising from and
performed for a declaration of his rights, duties
 Purpose thereunder
 To stop or prohibit proceedings from  can only be availed of before the breach
going on
 If proceedings are already finished - do Requisites of Declaratory Relief
not use prohibition as by then it would
1. existence of a justiciable controversy -
be moot and academic
capable of determination
 Unlike certiorari, prohibition is more
2. between persons whose interests are
expansive as it caters to quasi-judicial and
adverse
purely ministerial duties
3. party seeking declaratory relief must
D. Mandamus
have a legal interest in the controversy
Requisites:
4. issue is ripe for adjudication
1. Prove clear and controlling right - not
questionable and not subject to dispute
 Citizenship cannot be declared in an action
2. Duty of the person to whom mandamus
for declaratory relief. (Azajar v. Ardalles)
is directed is MINISTERIAL, not
discretionary  DR must precede breach so as to avoid
multiplicity of suits. (De Borja v. Villadolid)
3. No plain, speedy, adequate remedy
under the ordinary course of law  DR not available to a taxpayer who
questions his tax liability. (National Dental
Supply v. Meer)
 2. considerations of relative inconvenience
F. Habeas Corpus strongly in favor of petitioner
 In what cases will habeas corpus pertinent 3. there appears to be a willful invasion of
in administrative cases? petitioner's right and the injury is a
 Deportation cases continuing one
 It is a plain, speedy, adequate remedy to 4. PMI will not create a new relation
secure release of persons under custody between the parties
 Success of petition depends on the legality
of the detention H. Suit for Damages as an Indirect Method
 WHC would still issue even if the person is  Even if damage ensues because of acts in
already released if the release is conditional excess of authority, damages will not be
such as when there is surveillance, there is awarded if such act was (1) done in good
limitation in the place where he can go, etc. faith and (2) with color of title. (Philippine
 Detention is legal if it is reasonable (Mejoff Racing Club v. Bonifacio)
v. Director of Prisons)
 Bail renders a WHC moot and academic as PART VII.
the bail bond gives him liberty. (Co v. EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Deporation Board; Lucien Tran Van Nghia v.
Liwag) Note though that in Crim Pro we A. Law - fact distinction
were taught that WHC may still issue  Important because of substantial evidence
despite the granting of bail when there is still rule (i.e., AA decision, if supported by
effective detention. substantial evidence, will not be reviewed by
the court)
G. Injunction as a Provisional Remedy  Questions of Law - always reviewable
Purpose:  Question of Fact - reviewable only when not
1. To prevent the commission of certain acts supported by substantial evidence (findings
complained of of fact, if supported by substantial evidence,
2. Commission or continuance of act is conclusive on the court)
complained of would probably work injustice  A conclusion drawn from series of facts is a
to him question of law which may be reviewed
3. Defendant is doing, threatens or about to do (Dauan v. Secretary)
an act in violation of petitioner's rights which
may render the judgment ineffectve B. Question of Law
 If the plaintiff wins the main case, injunction  Examples are issue of constitutionality,
becomes permanent, if he does not, validity of agency action, and correctness of
injunction is dissolved the interpretation of law
 Ancillary remedy to principal action while  Other examples:
main action is pending 1. question of citizenship (Ortua v. Vicente
 To preserve rights while main action is Singson)
pending 2. WON there was a landlord- tenant
 Who issues the injunction relationship (Mejia v. Mapa)
 Superior court to an inferior court 3. Questions arising from proper
 The SEC and the RTC are co-equal (Pineda interpretation of the Articles of
v. Lantin; Phil Pacific Fishing Co. v. Luna) Incorporation (Japanese War Notes
Claimants v. SEC)
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction 4. Existence of an ER-EE relationship
 Commands an act to be done for the (Ysmael v. CIR)
purpose of restoring a pre-existing right and
to prevent damage C. Question of Fact
 Would be issued if:  GEN RULE: findings of fact of AA, if
1. right is clear supported by substantial evidence, is
conclusive on the courts
 EXCEPTIONS:  Res judicata is a judicial concept.
1. not supported by evidence presented  It does not apply if the exercise is purely
2. not supported by substantial evidence administrative
 EXAMPLES:  Res judicata may not be invoked in purely
1. WON thing exists administrative proceedings. (Nasipit Lumber
2. WON event took place v. NLRC)
3. Which of 2 conflicting versions is correct  Decisions and orders of AAs rendered
pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority
have, upon their finality, the force and effect
 SC may not accept AA’s findings of fact of a final judgment within the purview of the
when the decision was rendered by an doctrine of res judicata. (Dulay v. Minister of
almost evenly divided court and that the Natural Resources)
decision was precisely on the facts as borne
out by the evidence. (Gonzales v. Victory
Labor Union)
 When there is grave abuse of discretion Requisites of res judicata:
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is a 1. previous final judgment
justification for the courts to set aside the 2. rendered by court with jurisdiction
administrative determination reached. 3. must be a judgment on the merits
(Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board) 4. identity of parties, subject matter and
 Sir Carlota says there is substantial cause of action
evidence when there is a semblance of
reasonableness in your conclusion WRITS OF EXECUTION
 Substantial evidence does not require you to GENERAL RULE:
be sure but merely REASONABLE Agencies performing quasi-judicial functions
 Court must review the ENTIRE records. have the implied power to issue writs of
Substantial evidence must be taken as a execution.
whole - should not be selective in reviewing
the case. (Universal Camera Corporation v. EXCEPTION:
NLRB) If the enabling law expressly provides otherwise

D. Questions of Discretion  If the law is silent, presume that the agency

 If there is GAD, subject to certiorari has the power to enforce its decisions
 GAD - Capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, emanating from its quasi-judicial powers.
despotic (Apolega v. Hizon)
 If the writ of execution is refused to be
PART VIII. implemented, the proper remedy is
MANDAMUS because by virtue of the writ of
ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION
execution, the duty has become ministerial.
(Vda. de Corpuz v. the Commanding
How are agency actions going to be General of the Philippine Army)
enforced?  CFI and the NLRC are co-equal such that an
 Examine the pertinent provisions of the order even if not directed against the NLRC
enabling statute when it's effect would be to freeze it's
 Examples: issue permits, fix wages, executory decision should be nullified.
summary actions without notice and hearing, (Ambrosio v. Salvador)
ex parte order to cease and desist  The authority to decide cases (quasi-judicial
powers) should normally and logically begin
RES JUDICATA to include the grant of authority to enforce
Does res judicata apply to administrative and execute the judgment it thus renders,
agencies? unless the law otherwise provides. (GSIS v.
 Yes, if it is exercising it's QUASI-JUDICIAL CA)
FUNCTIONS (Ipekdjian Merchandising v.
CTA)