0% found this document useful (0 votes)
35 views39 pagesAdmin 33
Uploaded by
Einni LaurenteCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
35 views39 pagesAdmin 33
Uploaded by
Einni LaurenteCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 39
VL JUDICIALREVIEW,
‘OF OR RELitp,
‘ADMINISTRATIVE roe ELF AGAINST, o
atic the
i. oe 1a 1at/S coal supply the logical area operator
memoraneise a be MMIC. Ths, TEI and MIC colnet
the former's gh race whey Tl assigned to MMI al
opening ca (2) coal blocks covered by its coal
arene Uently Tlf an action in court for rescission ofthe
—— fa ;tbreement with damages against MMIC and the
iit, The decisive issue inthis case is whether or
cei itn iohearand decide Uc mt for wacoson
Jpemorandum of agreement concerning «coal operating
Held: (1) Jurisdiction of BED sustained by statutory proviso
—"“Itis the BED which : ard nt he
pe has jurisdiction over the action and not the
While the action filed by IBI sought the rescission of what
appears to be an ordinary civil contract cognizable by a civil
court, the fact is that the Memorandum of Agreement sought
a
‘Thus, it was that in its Decision ordering the rescission of
ae 3, the Trial Court, intr alia, declared the continued
efficacy of the coal-operating contract in II's favor and directed
the BED to give due course to IE's application for three (3) more
coal blocks. These are matters propery falling within the domain
of the BED.
), as the successor to the Energy Development
or ed bp Sel, PD. No, 1206), is tasked by PD.
No. 1206 with the function of establishing a compreh vet
{integrated national program for the xplcration, XP
development and extraction of fossil fuels, such a5 he country’s
coal resources; adopting coal developmen Pog 2 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Text
jon and developm«
rdinated development o}
Vi. JUDICIALREVIEW op,
ADMINS OE ORRELEE cans, @
Cleary, the doctrine
Clearly, of primary juris o
inthis case snc the question what oul enanohe tate ed
G) Trial court without competence to decide on matters
involved. — “The Trial Court does not have the competence to
decide matters concerning activities relative to the exploration,
exploitation, development and extraction of mineral resources
like coal. These issues preclude an initial judicial determination.
It behooves the courts to stand aside even when apparently they
have statutory power to proceed in recognition of the primary
jurisdiction of an administrative agency.
153 SCRA 399, at 407.)"
(4) Case in court need only be suspended. —"The application
ion, however, does not call for
issues, to agencies r uns b
Jelization, by insight gained through experience, and by
specialization by i ar fst Core Ueda,
342 US. 570)
ition for review of the decsi
i ettng that i is the BED that as
a _ the ex exploitation and
covey ata cent Eris
Se Cone of Appeals, 184 SCRAA26 (19901) “ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
20
Relation between exhaustion doctrine
and due process concept. :
of administrative remedies
aarp Sean ‘distinct concepts, they embody |
underlies both.
Doctrine of ripeness for judicial review.
The basic prin ripeness is that the
machinery should be conserved for problems which are real
(2). The background for the rule i i
attacks upon administrativeregulationisfoundin ees iol
the constitutionality of statutes. Indeed, from the standpoi
"Rulvivar vs. Ofice
Ofte ofthe Ombudsman, 55 SCRA 524 (2008,
vi JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRA OF OR Rep cane,
tien o
timing challenge, :
statutes, “Bons ae hardly distinguishable from
(a) A possiby
only if uncorttuonal en 4s that statutes are invalid
io Senegal
ty. Ce35of statutory
tions, giving such weight 5
to deserve on their ments” etlations as they seem
Application of the doctrine.
(2) A statute may be ripe for constitutional challenge in
advance of official action, if the statute is self-executing, that
TSDAVIS, Kenneth C, ADM, LAW TREATISE, St. Paul, Minn, West Publishing uncertainty by reason of
‘ered seriously enough should’
ative remedy
and the party affected is immediately confronted with the
fect eal all whites fering
nes all whites fearing pol
‘hie paronage or he Neg store: Negis means ee
Qstnanee sch a a saan aman’ of whe ener a
VL JUDICAL REV
ADMINSTRATIVE Ara AGAINST Z
between compliance and.
instruction is a criminal ose lance, and violation of the
(7) That
pert tiet t
action is unripe for challenge; the test
stantial injury to the plaintiff is present or on doctrine is customarily applied to”
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Text and Casg
oo / i
.dministrative agency.”
dication. The exhausti
adjudicative action of an a
|
whether the court will refuse to act at all."
Scope and extent of judicial review.
to finding of the existence of substantial evidence; and
(©) discretionary determinations, which are review-
able only to ascertain whether the action taken was arbi-
trary or capricious." ‘
(2) General frame of power. — The general frame of the |
power of judicial review is to keep the administrator within the _
valid statute which guides him and keep him from unreasonabl
excesses in the exercise of his function, and to asc
Wid, at6.
wid
“2 Aan Jr 24 45; ee “Questions open to reve” inf.
VL juDIciaL
ADMINISTRA a BOR RELIEF Aca
«8s
whether there is .
administrative agency i and the facts for what th
affecting constitutional Court is limited to quest
pre-requisites of proof, poe" Statutory authority Sie
The primary limitat
review is in regard to, cre a aoe to
trative agency. ie oma tothe discretion ofthe adminis
_@) Reviews limited. —The fundamer .
review of administrative action isthe an a oN
(a) The courts will not inquire into motives which
impel action by the administrative agency, for that does not
affect the legality or validity of the action except where it
involves fraud, malice, or intentional wrongdoing
particularly’ =
fot require it to decide a controversy particular way: VL JUDICIAL REVIEW
ADMINISTRATIVE nen RSUEEAGADN,
after administrative decision
then free to
mental mega MMA iat In ptecon ne
mission of judicial review tveithe funda-
indirect), included in this latter
the agency or its officials™ and
ars
(2) statutory. utory including in this later term
any remedy not ‘made available by a statute relating
to action of an administrative agency or agencies.
‘The choice of remedy is a matter of importance, since one
remedy may be more expeditious or less burdensome than
another, and the scope of review may vary with the remedy.”
groups: ve BS
i situ, — Statutory
@) ere rome ea foc
in oe ema Bae ee
remedy itself is gove! alto priors
Pree cry of Pb Meo
"See Philippine Racing Clb In 8 Boal i
2 Am, Jur. 2d 606 The fact that a statute does not provide for judicial revi
Vi JUDICIAL REVIEW oF op,
‘ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS EF AGAINS, a
Relation between the two (2) meth =
(1) Where a statute relat sien pany
i jnethod of review may be regarded as
method, Pte ofeny ate orn
(2) "Some cases hold, not that the stat
‘ not tory method of
review is exclusive, but} na
to judicial relief by ao aultmustbe exhaused asa preregiste
(3) _In some instances,
has not presided review by menses fe oe
the statute especially a8 to acts which are entirely unwanted
or where exceptional circumstances exist, and inadequacy ofthe
statutory remedy may provide a basis for relief by some other
method." wire
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:
le Appeal. — Appeal tothe courts tas taken within reglemen-
{ary perio of 30 days counted not from the receipt of he decision, but
‘from the denial of the maton for reconsideration of the decision ofthe
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. F
: certiorari and prohibition wit
prlintnney te eeeateatiee este eS bar
eens me ee Seen ts
eee
bei a
answer, respondents aim |
by then tthe Court of Fitlntance conte an appeal om VL JUDICIAL REVIEW;
ADMINISTRATIVE nee SLEFAGAINST, -
the confusion that may be caused to E. a
rane” Grea psn euro fe Pein
ta al Jud
the Court of First Instone, 97 i105 seen ige of
os = fom Petition against Court of Industrial
Relations & tt of a el at ce een
certiorari is intended, ‘Si
Facts: This isa petition for certiorari against the Judge of the
‘Court of Industrial Relations who penned the a
Ta y :
Issue: May the Supreme Court pass upon this question?
Headers lesen to
‘Sateen sio Of the Cour of Industrial Relations
is by certionari of law may therein. ICAL
vi FRAT ORORRELEP Aca,
os
[acl () Deft tendency to etance and inciorte role of
Comelec as independent constiuiional body. “Both petitions
invoh Vi. JUDICIAL REVIEW oF op
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS et AGAINST,
“s
4. Certiorari. — The Su assed
. upreme Court
iit gal issues involved but ais the findings of facts upon hich io
decision ofthe Court of Tax Appeals is based
down the scope and extent of| su Appeals is silent as to matters left open to the Supreme Court for
undertake to what is strictly the office of certiorari as distinguished review or the issues it may take cognizance of in passing upon
from review. F petitions to review by certiorari decisions or ruling of the Court of
4 Tax Appeals.
Issue: May the Supreme Court consider the questions of facts
involved in the controversy?
Held: Yes, (1) Two (2) toays of eleoating ruling, etc. of CTA to
he receives notice of said ruling, order or deci ;
(Sec. 18, R.A. No. 1125.); and second, by causing such ruling, order
or decision ofthe Court of Tax Appeals itemise revcwe by us
‘upon a writ of certiorari in proper cases.™ (Sec. 19, R.A. No. 1125,
vl proceeding invol
AS 1 Appeal an Cs Cae
& matter arising under the National Intra
fot i | be maintai
tal determination othe sound discretion of ‘or the Local Government Code shall
» reserving it to the Supreme Court ‘with the provisions ofthis Act
ness.” nc* Of due process only in cases of patt ‘A party adverely aed
reconsideration or new
for
of «Division ofthe CTA ona motion
ae or reve with the CTA ADMINSTRATIVE LAN ‘VL. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF og
6 i ADMINISTRATIVE ACTOS EF AGAINST,
“
vay interchangebly consider petitions for and Use of Falsiigg
iteninr and vce vers. — “Promised Official Receipts) ised anes Ce Dong cy
7 etleged that when a casei taken up The City name of CRT pemae® an
on these provisions, it may DEW. we could go over the evidence tant Procecaty PiSCutor approved the i
to this Court by petition for reviet fact; but that in cases of Se OseCUtOr dismissing the Resolution of the Assis-
on record and pass upon the ee te Court could ai probable cause. BD filed Petition fetus of failure to establish
review upon petition fr a writ of Nar Appeals (CA) after the Departmen vim before the Court of
pass upon issues involving questions of "2: Tor to justify the reversal of ihe sae (00)) found no er-
In answer to these possible arguments) we may Say that imissed the Petition; hence, BD a Pree eeoluon. The CA dis-
when the interest of justice so demands, we may In rahe ‘2 Petition for Review on Cetra Supreme Court ia
toncider petitions for review as petitions fora writ of certiorari andl Ite BD sted the
Sao aeras and if we have the power to consider the evidence to erred in dismissing the Pore among eters that the CA
“Ieterine the facts in cases of review, we find no plausible reason and categorical existence of probable cane har none
for depriving this Court of such power in petitions for certiorari filing of criminal cases the ree se that would justify the
expecially if we consider that inthe latter cases, petitioner often Haale) Pesan i respondents
Charges the respondent court with the commission of grave abuse the CA deniod ei Rete an improper rene. — "When
Sf discretion the determination of which usually depends on the for extension of ive days itwas ments apg ear
facts and circumstances of the points in controversy.’ tioned provision [Sec. 4 Rule & hac, eco the abovemen-
(3) Collector of Internal Reference filed notice of appeal. — ter it found the reason for the se et Sot a ie ales af
“Moreover, in the case at bar, we find that on March 1, 1956, xx x Besides, even ifthe CA ignores the petitions belated fling,
respondent Collector of Internal Revenue filed with the Court of the same would have been dismissed for bing an improper rem.
‘Tax Appeals notice of appeal from the resolution of said court that edy. It has been held that ‘the remedy ofa party desiring to elevate
is now subject of this recourse and no matter how inappropriate to the appellate court an adverse resolution of the Secretary of
may be the wording of the petition filed in this instance, it could Justice is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. A Rule 43 petition
not conceal that respondent's intention was to appeal the matter for review is a wrong mode of appeal.” (Barangay Dasmarifias
to this Court, as otherwise he would not have filed the notice to s. Creative Play Corner School, 640 SCRA 296 [20111.)
appeal which is required in petitions i A. No. ene
1125,) and not in petitions for certiora (Collector of
Internal Revenue vs. Eznar, 202 Phil. 979 6. Mandamus. — Petition asks the Supreme Court to order the
Secretary of the Interior to confirm the final results ofthe physicians’
atiiney tant examinations.
5. _ Certiorari.— Petitioner fled a Petition for Review before the Facts: The petitioners took the examinations prescribed
i :: The petitioners
Court of Appeals of the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice affirming by law for a physician's certificate and apparently passed the
the dismissal ofa criminal case. same. The Board of Medical Examiners thereupon submitted
cnations to the Department Head for
ines held the matter in
Facts: Petitioner Barangay Dasmarifias (BD) filed a complaint- the final results of th
jon conducted by
affidavit before the Office of the Prosecutor of Makati chargin8 3 confirmation. But the Secretary ofthe Interior h
respondents CPC School and its alleged owners with Falsification abeyance, pending the outcome ofan investiga
the Undersecretary of the Interior.
aus et gy tao Party adversely affected by a decision of the
cin eh ee ar eed i eo oi ames ent nee
Dee eteee) ‘Gil Procedure.” (R.A. No, 1125, as amended bY 's bia a Petition for Certoral under Rule Cot
Office of the President. Barairo vs. Office o
rear
mteiae retard
seen VL JUDICIAL REVIEW,
ADMINISTRATIVE AC REUEAGAI, a
the duty shall be perf
ministerial”) "iis Such duty is discretionary and not
oe
likewise elem 40 correct abuse of discretion, — “1
abuse that dom ay set or
modal 's otherwise proper. But here, the
the rie etet di nt exercise
i to him with manifest injustice, or with gross
‘The Board of Medical Examiners,
a M09
nonpeeee
7, Mandamus,
Philippine Vaentatis— Cort rene eto skin i order the
ippine: Board to release treasury warrants the preparation
of which oas made by mistake, ADMINISTRATIVELAW:Textand Casey 7 |, JUDICIAL REV
mS ADMINISTRATIVE SeORRELIER,
STIVEACTIOn “=PAGAINsr,
intervened in ordering delivery, o
rt improperly hed fact that [SS the petition
is stablisl
‘untenable. It being an est Mertotions?
Held: No. Cow
(1) Petitioner di no
course of lav. — ot exhaust remedies in a
td 3 ag tadashi orinry
pre-condition fa pl & of the Rules of U certiorari)
8 for these remedies, that thee on vequi®, 28 @
to restore petitioner's pension; and eve
‘or erroneous, the court could not properly intervene,
appellee-pettioner should have exhausted her administrative
srefore, the court below should have limited itself
remedies and proceeded to seek
petition” reeded to seek recourse the present
judgment and discretion, may only be resorted to, to
compel the respondent to take action it annot be used to direct
private individuals who purportedly
benefited from certain anomalous transactions. “4 4
must be established af
Rioea ns
a % vhe gravely abuses
bee souecas ‘an evasion of a
fi a is discretion, it, .
prosecution. The Ombarger ger tange for their immunity from positive duty or a amma
for immunity in exch nn granted the respondents’ request | Jaw, or when he als aga
in the prosecution a ane® for their testimonies and cooperation : Se finan — “we te
the cases filed a i i Oatae re the power to grant immunity, the
legislature is the source DMINISTRATIVE LAW: Text and Casey 7
a
this prosecutory
eer Ombudsman 10 STARE
1antum of proof req administrative proceeding.
Sepirenent Of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure ib
RA No. 6770 adopted by reference) that the proposed
JUDICIAL Rava
Rohan EON ee aca mf
the Deportation Board from continuiy deportation proceedings against
petitioner who claims tobe a Filipino sien, ADMINISTRATIVELAW: Tet and Cates Vt DACA on :
his undesirability, The "
of the jurisdictional a Se PAon the sbeene
The difficulty ar.
either side, as in Masare the
trampled upon it, besmirching the citizen's name before the bo
of public opinion?”
(3) Judicial determination not allowed in all cases. ~ “How
the Sound discretion of a competent court in a proper proceed-
ing”
(4). Proper in case at bar. — “In the case at bar, We find that
96 Phil. 665 [1955].
10. Prohibition. — Petition asks the. Supreme Court to prohibit
the Secretary of Labor from renewing license to rerui laborers or issuing
ia Sail
pe Association had, for
themed oo anton proces Facis: The Hawaiian Sugar Planters’
: - ic overnment to recTuit, contract
Sema ahh men ran ee Ry
a asTRATIVELAW:Text and Cases Vi. JUDICIAL REVIEW;
OF OR REL
AGAINST,
‘ADMIN
‘ADM
INISTRATIVE ACTIONS
or
11> Pelt ee eeae pl vp
relic assilng the validity of the occa at Aelaraary
‘ality of the impending imposition of value-aded
fantacy ie Beau of nea Reem) ote calecton f
Facts: Petitioners hold the view, among others,
didnot, when it ented the Naonal lena Revenue Coe
is imposed on top of the toll ate. Further, the imposition of VAT
cn toll fees would have very minimal effect on motorists using the
tollways.
Issue: The case presents two (2) procedural and two (2)
‘substantive issues, The frst procedural issues whether or not the
‘Supreme Court may treat the petition for declaratory relief as one
for prohibition.
‘Held (1) Precedents for treating petition as one for prokibition. —
; and the only effect of a writ of ne rex pet fac dcatry reel
tion, and to prevent any further as one for prokibition if the case has farreaching implications
” ; si need to be resolved for the public good.
or in excess of his authority remedy to prohibit ornullfy tion of VAT
‘ ‘Here, the imposition
license in question, to usurpation oflegislativeauthorty. ion would
patty AM | ol ee a a me
. ‘the more
hi pe ls, eal el oc a a ee ace
or tel etna to raise revenue fr funding
agin! eiltive x quaslegsatve functions Ermita vs, Aldeco-Delovino, 651 SCRA — “Although the petition does not
requirements of Rule 65, the Court has
Technical requirements when the legal questions to be resolved,
are of great importance to the public. The same may be said of the
requirement of locus standi which is a mere procedural requisite.”
(Diaz vs. Secretary of Finance, 654 SCRA 96 [20111.)
12. Injunction. — Petition prays for the return to petitioner of
his radio transmitters seized under a search warrant.
corresponding fees. Again the Radio Control Office took no action
on the matter, one way or the other, thus inducing petitioner,
to believe that there was nothing irregular or wee wit his
application and with the continued operation of his station.
VL JUDICIAL REVIEW;
[ADMINISTRATR OF OF Re, =
Issue: Is there ju
wit of mandatory ghee” the grant of the prt 5
/Prayed ad
Held: Yes. (1) Seizure nad
cropect ens = Ta a
i radio station for
interference on the 0 long practically without
ieee i ut eka os
40 closure of station andor:
fact that petitioner had been allowed
(2) Requirement of hearing applies. — “While,
stated, pttioners lt applcaton or renewal feces no
been disapproved, we believe that the requirement of a hearing
it
broadcasting, This, precisely, is the situation obtaining in
Present case.” rea se 72
(3) Petitioner ‘clearly entitled 10 issuance of ‘preliminary
injunction. — “While cour shou vere gest cave nN
mandatory injunctions because y e ‘but to compel
recta eet cas
: Se
pyinhis ATIVE LAW? Text and Cases VL. JUDICIALREVIEW of op.
‘ADMINISTRA t [ADMINISTRATIVE ACI REUE AGAIN,
gS ws
4 not hesitate in” Issue: Mi
dent, courts shoul ay the Collector
interrupted by the TI 7 SCRA ).) fis from proceeding with Of Internal Reve ;
granting the writ” (Lem! ; any propery ofthe tmp en distin ———
— : Held: Yes. (1)
rari seeks to nullify al restrain clon ange! by leo gr
Collector of Internal like the one at bar Pevenue tax. — There mi
a taxpayer. i ee
‘Section 11 of
rA) promulgated a amended Section 505 sn ®,, 112 must be deemed to have
£205 of the National Intemal Revenue Code in
305 of the jonal Res e Code when it restrained the method empl ‘to . eo
fonner from executing the warrant of distraint and levy against illegal pre acialic! 2 Sekai evidently
ible to restrain the collection its findings that the means intended to be used by petitioner in the
rity to grant an injunction collection of the alleged deficiency taxes were in violation of law.
internal revenue tax, fee, OF It certainly would be an absurdity on the part ofthe Court of Tax
prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of injunction.” (Collector of
Internal Revemue vs, Reyes and Court of Appeals, 100 Phil, 822 [19571.)
1A, Injunction. — The gregh Got
Government (PCG) assails, in its Petition for Certirari an
Prohibition with Urgent Payer or Temporary Restrening Ore eve ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Text and Cs
such nullity as a justification for the issuance of the questioned
writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction.
Issue: Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
questioned preliminary injunctive writ?
writ to prevent serious damage. Otherwise stated, before a writ
of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear
showing that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts
vi. JUDICIAL!
Ronin OE Re
“
ight.” the Wits tobe d
aa I be dred are violative of eabahed
cog 2s 4
‘Sequestration ive conclusion,
Case No. Ole wh so As tothe validity ofthe
657 SCRA 477 [2011],)
15. Declaratory relief: — Complainant preys that plaintiff be
declared a Filipino citizen and entitled to acquire lands of the public
domain.
is not entitled to acquire lands ofthe me Bis
opposition to her: Qn ej a arte
het citizenship which is prejudicial to her infers poe ies
erect umole y
sales application. centhip,
Upon allegations inthe complaint eer ed declsing
she prays that after di ‘entitled to acquire lands of “ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Tent and Casey
possessed of al the rights and,
the public domain, and that
privileges accorded to Filipino
1's citizenship
judgment or relief?
ts prescribed to acquire
be determined in the
lands of the public domain. —"
will, contract or other written instrument; nor are her rights
affected by a statute or ordinance, and so her grievance against
FA who objected to her sales application fora parcel of land of the
public domain has not brought her under and within the scope
oF Section 1 of Rule 66 [of the Rules of Court). A sales application
filed with the Bureau of Lands must go through the different
prescribed by law until the Director of Lands, the officer
Clothed with the authority to alienate lands belonging to the public
domain renders his decision. Whether the appellant is entitled or
not to purchase the parcel of land of the public domain applied
for her depends upon her citizenship aside from the requirements
prescribed by law.
From a decision of the Bureau of Lands an appeal lies to
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. For that
il these administrative remedies shall have
proceedings. If she is a
she should go ahead with the
Bureau of Lands and submit
.. The appellant may resort
the exercise of her rights as citizen be peed
mmpel the officers, who preve or denied her the
exercise of her rights as 2 Flipino citizen, to allow her to exerise
such rights. Su not the action brought nsequi
the Court below should have dismissed ma a “