ADMINLAW

Quasi-Legislative or Rule Making Power

In the administrative law, quasi-legislative or rule-making power is one

of the essential functions exercised by administrative agencies. It refers to
the authority delegated to administrative bodies by the legislature to
create rules and regulations that have the force and effect of law.

Legal Basis and Delegation of Rule-Making Power

-Under the Philippine Constitution, the legislative power is vested in

Congress. However, administrative agencies are delegated quasi-
legislative powers to fill in the details and implement the laws passed by
Congress. The delegation of this rule-making power is founded on the
principle that Congress cannot foresee every detailed situation that may
arise and must rely on specialized administrative agencies to formulate
specific rules to implement the law. This delegation of power is considered
constitutional as long as it meets the following two requirements:

1. Completeness Test

2. Sufficient Standard Test

Types of Rules Issued Under Quasi-Legislative Power

1. Substantive Rules

2. Interpretative Rules

3. Procedural Rules

Rule-Making Process

-The issuance of rules by an administrative agency typically follows a

process set forth under the Administrative Code of 1987 or special
statutes creating the agency. The process includes:

1. Notice

2. Public Participation

3. Publication

4. Legislative Oversight

Limitations on Quasi-Legislative Power

1. Conformity to Law

2. Non-Delegation Doctrine

3. Constitutional Limitations
 4. Judicial Review

2. Nature, Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations, Requisites for

validity

i: Nature

This is the exercise of delegated legislative power, involving no

discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix
the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the
law itself. In Holy Spirit Homeowners Association v. Secretary
Defensor, G.R. No. 163980, August 3, 2006, the Supreme Court said
that quasi-legislative power is the power to make rules and
regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the
confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability
and separation of powers.

ii. Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations

[a] Supplementary or detailed legislation. They are rules and

regulations "to fix the details" in the execution and enforcement of a
policy set out in the law. They are in the nature of subordinate legislation,
and designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details
thereof. They usually implement existing law, imposing general, extra-
statutory obligations pursuant to authority properly delegated by
Congress [Republic (FDA) v. Drugmaker's Laboratories. G.R. No. 190387,
March 5, 2014]. An example would be the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code.

[b] Interpretative legislation. They are rules and regulations construing

or interpreting the provisions of a statute to be enforced; they are
intended to clarify or explain existing statutory regulations under which
the administrative body operates [Republic v. Drugmaker's, supra.].
Examples are BIR Circulars, Bangko Sentral Circulars, etc.

[i] They are binding on all concerned until they are changed; they have
the force and effect of law, and are entitled to great respect; they have in
their favor the presumption of legality [Gonzalez v. Land Bank, 183 SCRA
520]. The erroneous application of the law by public officers does not bar
a subsequent correct application of the law [Manila Jockey Club v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 103533, December 15, 1998].

[c] Contingent legislation. They are rules and regulations made by an

administrative authority on the existence of certain facts or things upon
which the enforcement of the law depends.

iii.
Requisites for validity:

[a] Issued under authority of law. There must be a valid law which
delegates legislative powers to the administrative agency. See: Olsen v.
Aldanese, 43 Phil 64. [i] In Department of Health v. Philip Morris
Philippines Manufacturing, G.R. No. 202943, March 25, 2015, the Supreme
Court ruled that R.A. 9211 ("An Act Regulating the Packaging, Use, Sale,
Distribution and Advertisement

[b] Within the scope and purview of the law. [i] The power of
administrative officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of a
statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative
enactment. The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot
extend the law or expand its coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a
statute is vested in the legislature. However, administrative bodies are
allowed, under their power of subordinate legislation, to implement the
broad policies laid down in the statute by “filling in” the details. All that is
required is that the regulation be germane to the objectives and purposes
of the law; that the regulation does not contradict but conforms with the
standards prescribe by law.

[c] Reasonable.

[d] Publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general

circulation, as provided in Executive Order No. 200. Publication must be in
full, or it is no publication at all [Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446].
However, interpretative rules and regulations, or those merely internal in
nature, or the so-called letters of instruction issued by administrative
superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their duties, may be simply posted in
conspicuous places in the agency itself. Such posting already complies
with the publication requirement.

Legislation

ARTICLE VI SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION) Section 1: The legislative power

shall be vested in the congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a
senate and a house of representatives, except the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

Executive Order No. 292 [BOOK VII/Chapter 1-General Provisions]

BOOK VII Administrative Procedure

CHAPTER 1 General Provisions

SECTION 1. Scope. This Book shall be applicable to all agencies as defined
in the next succeeding section, except the Congress, the Judiciary, the
Constitutional Commissions, military establishments in all matters relating
exclusively to Armed Forces personnel, the Board of Pardons and Parole,
and state universities and colleges.

SECTION 2. Definitions.-As used in this Book

(1)"Agency" includes any department, bureau, office, commission,

authority or officer of the National Government authorized by law or
executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or
privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect
to licensing functions; government corporations with respect to
functions regulating private right, privileges, occupation or business;
and officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law.

(2) "Rule" means any agency statement of general applicability that

implements or interprets a law, fixes and describes the procedures in, or
practice requirements of, an agency, including its regulations. The term
includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration
or management of an agency not affecting the rights of, or procedure
available to, the public.

(2) "Rule" means any agency statement of general applicability that

implements or interprets a law, fixes and describes the procedures in, or
practice requirements of, an agency, including its regulations. The term
includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration
or management of an agency not affecting the rights of, or procedure
available to, the public.

(3) "Rate" means any charge to the public for a service open to all and
upon the same terms, including individual or joint rates, tolls,
classifications, or schedules thereof, as well as commutation, mileage,
kilometerage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law or
regulation to be observed and followed by any person.

(4) "Rule making" means an agency process for the formulation,

amendment, or repeal of a rule.

(5) "Contested case" means any proceeding, including licensing, in which

the legal rights, duties or privileges asserted by specific parties as
required by the Constitution or by law are to be determined after hearing.

(6) "Person" includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association,

public or private organization of any character other than an agency.

(7) "Party" includes a person or agency named or admitted as a party, or

properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party, in any
agency proceeding; but nothing herein shall be construed to prevent an
agency from admitting any person or agency as a party for limited
purposes.

(8) "Decision" means the whole or any part of the final disposition, not of
an interlocutory character, whether affirmative, negative, or injunctive in
form, of an agency in any matter, including licensing, rate fixing and
granting of rights and privileges.

(9) "Adjudication" means an agency process for the formulation of a final

order.

(10) "License" includes the whole or any part of any agency permit,
certificate, passport, clearance, approval, registration, charter,
membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission, or
regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege.

(11) "Licensing" includes agency process involving the grant, renewal,

denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation,
amendment, modification or conditioning of a license.

(12) "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.

(13) "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.

(14) "Agency proceeding" means any agency process with respect to rule-
making, adjudication and licensing.

(15) "Agency action" includes the whole or part of every agency rule,
order, license, sanction, relief or its equivalent or denial thereof.

Executive Order No. 292 [BOOK VII/Chapter 2-Rules and Regulations]

Signed on July 25, 1987

CHAPTER 2

Rules and Regulations

SECTION 3. Filing.-(1) Every agency shall file with the University of the
Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by
it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed
within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of
any sanction against any party or persons.

(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent functionary, shall
carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action.

(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency
and shall be open to public inspection.

SECTION 4. Effectivity. In addition to other rule-making requirements

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

SECTION 5. Publication and Recording. The University of the Philippines

Law Center shall:

(1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it
during the preceding quarter; and

(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published and

remaining in effect, together with a complete index and appropriate
tables.

SECTION 6. Omission of Some Rules.-(1) The University of the Philippines

Law

Center may omit from the bulletin or the codification any rule if its
publication would be unduly cumbersome, expensive or otherwise
inexpedient, but copies of that rule shall be made available on application
to the agency which adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice
stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and new copies
thereof may be obtained.

(2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which, pursuant to

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

SECTION 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. The University of

the Philippines Law Center shall furnish one (1) free copy each of every
issue of the bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to the Office
of the President, Congress, all appellate courts and the National Library.
The bulletin and the codified rules shall be made available free of charge
to such public officers or agencies as the Congress may select, and to
other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or
distribution costs.

SECTION 8. Judicial Notice.-The court shall take judicial notice of the

certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or the
codified rules.

SECTION 9. Public Participation.-(1) If not otherwise required by law, an

agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed
rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views
prior to the adoption of any rule.

(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the
proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general
circulation at least two

(2) weeks before the first hearing thereon.

(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed.

LEGISLATION vs. RULE-MAKING

Legislation (Article VI, Section 1 – 1987 Constitution)

✓ Refers to the power of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives)

to make laws.

✓ Laws created through legislation are called statutes or Republic Acts.

✓ These laws set broad national policies and establish legal standards on
public matters like health, education, justice, and the economy.

✓ Legislation undergoes a rigid process: bill filing, committee hearings,

debates, voting, and presidential approval.

✓ Has the highest legal authority among written rules.

✓Goal: to promote public welfare, justice, order, and national

development.

Rule-Making(Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987, Secs. 1–9)

✓ Refers to the authority of administrative agencies (like DOH, BIR,

DepEd, etc.) to formulate detailed rules and regulations to carry out the
law.
✓ These are called Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs) or
administrative issuances.

✓ Rule-making does not create new law, but it interprets and applies
existing laws in more practical and technical terms.

✓ It follows legal procedures including public consultation, publication,

filing with the UP Law Center, and sometimes public hearings.

✓ Aims to ensure that laws are correctly implemented, especially in

specialized areas that require technical knowledge.

SECTION 3. Filing.-(1) Every agency shall file with the University of the
Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by
it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed
within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of
any sanction against any party or persons.

(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent functionary, shall
carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action.

(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency
and shall be open to public inspection.

SECTION 4. Effectivity. In addition to other rule-making requirements

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

SECTION 5. Publication and Recording. The University of the Philippines

Law Center shall:

(1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it
during the preceding quarter; and

(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published and

remaining in effect, together with a complete index and appropriate
tables.

SECTION 6. Omission of Some Rules.-(1) The University of the Philippines

Law

Center may omit from the bulletin or the codification any rule if its
publication would be unduly cumbersome, expensive or otherwise
inexpedient, but copies of that rule shall be made available on application
to the agency which adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice
stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and new copies
thereof may be obtained.

(2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which, pursuant to

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

SECTION 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. The University of

the Philippines Law Center shall furnish one (1) free copy each of every
issue of the bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to the Office
of the President, Congress, all appellate courts and the National Library.
The bulletin and the codified rules shall be made available free of charge
to such public officers or agencies as the Congress may select, and to
other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or
distribution costs.

SECTION 8. Judicial Notice.-The court shall take judicial notice of the

certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or the
codified rules.

SECTION 9. Public Participation.-(1) If not otherwise required by law, an

agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed
rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views
prior to the adoption of any rule.

(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the
proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general
circulation at least two

(2) weeks before the first hearing thereon.

(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed.

OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE

Principle in Philippine jurisprudence that serves as an exception to the

general rule that unconstitutional laws are void from the beginning (void
ab initio). This doctrine acknowledges that, prior to a law being declared
unconstitutional, it may have produced effects that cannot be ignored,
especially when individuals or entities have relied on it in good faith.

General Rule vs. Exception

Under the general rule, an unconstitutional law is considered inoperative

from its inception, conferring no rights and imposing no duties. However,
the Doctrine of Operative Fact allows for the recognition of the law's
effects before its invalidation, to prevent undue harm to those who relied
on it. This approach balances the need to uphold constitutional supremacy
with considerations of fairness and equity.

Limitations of the Doctrine

The Doctrine of Operative Fact is not universally applicable and

has specific limitations:

Non-application to Criminal Liability: The doctrine generally does

not apply to criminal acts or penalties arising from a void law.

Absence of Bad Faith: It does not protect actions taken under a

void law if they were done in bad faith.

No Significant Reliance: If there was no substantial reliance on

the void law, or if its retroactive invalidation does not cause
undue hardship, the doctrine may not be invoked.

Administrative rules with penal functions refer to regulations issued by

administrative agencies that include penalties or sanctions for violations.
These are not laws passed by Congress but are implementing rules
authorized by laws to regulate behavior and enforce compliance.

Administrative rules with penal functions in the Philippines serve as an

extension of legislative intent, allowing agencies to enforce laws
effectively. However, they must follow constitutional and procedural
safeguards to avoid abuse and ensure fairness.

Legal Basis

1987 Philippine Constitution Allows Congress to delegate the power to

make rules and regulations to government agencies.

Administrative Code of 1987Requires all administrative rules to be

published before they can be enforced. Rules must follow proper
procedures (e.g., public consultation, publication).

Enabling Laws These are the specific laws passed by Congress that give
agencies the authority to make rules and impose penalties.

Examples: Clean Air Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Anti-Red
Tape Act.

Important Reminders

• All rules with penalties must be published first (Official Gazette or

major newspaper) before enforcement.

• Agencies must follow due process (notice, hearing, fair

application).
Administrative rules with penal functions are essential tools for
government agencies in the Philippines. They allow agencies to enforce
laws properly and ensure that violators are held accountable. However,
these rules must always follow legal procedures and be supported by
existing laws.

Requisites for Validity of Administrative Rules

• The rule must be within the scope of the agency’s authority

as provided by its enabling law.

• It must be promulgated following the required procedure,

typically including publication and a period for public
comment (the Doctrine of Publication and Notice).

• It must be reasonable and consistent with the Constitution

and other laws.

• Lawful Subject: The regulation must involve a legitimate

subject within the scope of public interest, such as the
health, safety, or morals of society. The measure must be
directed toward promoting the general welfare.

• Lawful Means: The means used must be reasonable and not

arbitrary. It must be necessary to accomplish the purpose of
the regulation and not impose unduly harsh or excessive
burdens on individuals or property owners.

• The Doctrine of Legislative Approval by Reenactment, also known as

the legislative reenactment doctrine, is a principle of statutory
construction. It holds that when a legislature reenacts a statute
without substantial change, it implicitly approves any prior judicial
or administrative interpretations of that statute. This means that the
legislature is deemed to have endorsed the existing understanding
of the law as reflected in these interpretations.

• How the Doctrine Works: The doctrine operates on the assumption

that legislators are aware of existing interpretations of the law when
they reenact it. By not altering the statute despite those
interpretations, the legislature is seen as tacitly agreeing with them.
This approval lends weight to the prior interpretations, often giving
them the force of law.

• Limitations and Exceptions: However, the doctrine is not absolute.

Courts have recognized several limitations and exceptions:
 • Ambiguity: The doctrine primarily applies when there's ambiguity in
the original statute, and the prior interpretation clarifies its
meaning. If the statute is clear, the doctrine is less likely to apply.

• Substantial Change: If the reenactment includes significant changes

to the statute, the prior interpretations are not necessarily adopted.
The alterations suggest a legislative intent to modify or overturn
previous understandings.

• Agency Rulemaking Power: If an administrative agency has ongoing

rule-making authority, the legislature's reenactment doesn't prevent
the agency from later changing its interpretation. The agency's
power to update its regulations is generally considered paramount
to the reenactment doctrine

• Prospective vs. Retroactive Application: The doctrine is primarily

used to interpret the meaning of the law, not to determine whether
a prior interpretation should be applied retroactively. Courts have
generally held that even if a prior interpretation is endorsed through
reenactment, an agency can still prospectively amend its
interpretation

Practical Application: The doctrine is frequently used in tax law, where

administrative interpretations of tax codes are often reviewed by courts. A
court might consider a prior interpretation of a tax code section to be
binding if Congress reenacted the section without altering that part

Valid Requisites of Administrative Regulation

(a) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;

(b) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature;

(c) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;

(d) it must be reasonable.

1. As to Nature

a. Quasi-Legislative or Rule-Making Power It-s also known- as. the "power

of subordinate legislation. It is the power of administrative agencies to
issue rules and regulations intended in order to implement a policy fixed
by the legislature (DE. LEON, supra at 90), Rule-making power necessarily
includes the power-: to amend, revise, alter, of repeat its rules and
regulations (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc, of the Phils, P, Duque
III, G.R. No.173034, October 9, 200713/
The rules so promulgated must be within the confines of the granting
statute and must involve no discretion as to what the tow shall be, but
merely the authority to fix the details In the execution or enforcement of
the policy set out in the law itself, 8g as to conform with the doctrine of
separation of powers and 95-an adjunct, the doctrine of non-delegability
or legislative power (Republic v Drugmaker Laboratories, Inc. G.R. No.
190637 Merch 5, 2014).

Quasi-Legislative Power refers to the authority granted to

administrative agencies (such as commissions, boards, and
departments) to formulate rules and regulations that have the force
and effect of law. This power is also known as rule-making power or
delegated legislation.

Distinction of Quasi-Legislative Power in the Philippines

Here’s how quasi-legislative power is defined and distinguished in the

Philippine context:

Definition:

Quasi-legislative power is the authority delegated by the legislature

(Congress) to administrative agencies to create rules and regulations
necessary for the implementation of a law.

📌 It is "quasi" (meaning "as if") legislative because it mimics the function

of making laws, but is exercised by bodies other than Congress.

Key Characteristics:

1. Delegated by Law: It exists only because the legislature

(Congress) has passed a law authorizing an agency to issue
implementing rules.

2. Supplementary, Not Substitutive: These rules must conform to

the enabling law and cannot go beyond it.

3. Subject to Limitations: Agencies must follow due process,

including publication and, in some cases, public hearings.
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES/BODIES PART II

A. QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADJUDICATORY POWER

The power of the administrative agency to determine questions of fact to which the legislative
policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself.

I. SOURCE OF POWER/BASIC PREMISES (SECS. 10-15, BOOK VII,

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE)

SECTION 10. COMPROMISE AND ARBITRATION.

- To expedite administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and obviate

expensive litigations, every agency shall, in the public interest, encourage amicable
settlement, comprise and arbitration.

· SECTION 11. NOTICE AND HEARING IN CONTESTED CASES.

(1) 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 the hearing.

(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues. If
not precluded by law, informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation,
agreed settlement or default.

(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings.

· SECTION 12. RULES OF EVIDENCE. - IN A CONTESTED CASE:

(1) The agency may admit and give probative value to evidence commonly accepted by
reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.

(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original is
not readily available. Upon request, the parties shall be given opportunity to compare the
copy with the original. If the original is in the official custody of a public officer, a certified
copy thereof may be accepted.

(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses presented against him and to
submit rebuttal evidence.

(4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally cognizable
technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. The parties shall be notified and
afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed.

Section 13. Subpoena.

- In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of
witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon
request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance. Unless
otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the
Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. The
Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.

Section 14. Decision.

- Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The agency shall decide each
case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the
decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to
them.

Section 15. Finality of Order.

- 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.

II. NATURE

Quasi-judicial power allows administrative agencies to:

• Conduct hearings and investigations.

• Make findings of fact based on presented evidence.

• Apply legal standards to resolve disputes.

• Issue enforceable orders and rulings.

III. REQUISITES

For the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power, administrative agencies must adhere to the
following requirements:

• Jurisdiction – The agency must have legal authority over the subject matter.

• Notice – Parties involved must be informed of proceedings.

• Hearing – A fair opportunity must be provided for parties to present their case.

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

Administrative Due Process

The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's
side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, and to submit any
evidence a party may have in support of his defense. The demands of due process are
sufficiently met when the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered (Nacion v. COA, G.R. No. 204757, March 17, 2015).

Cardinal Principles: (RESS-BAK)

1. Right to a hearing

2. Tribunal must consider the Evidence presented;

3. The Evidence must be Substantial;

4. The Decision must be Supported sufficiently;

5. The Decision must be Based on evidence adduced at the hearing or at least contained in the
records and disclosed to parties;

6. The Board or judge must Act on its or his own independent consideration of facts and law
of the case, and not simply. accept the view of the subordinate in arriving at a decision; and

7. The Decision must be rendered in such a manner that parties to controversy can Kriow
various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered (Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No.
L-46496, February 27, 1940; Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines v.
DOLE, G.R. No. 202275, July 17, 2018)

V. DETERMINATIVE POWERS

REFER TO THE AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES TO MAKE FINAL

DECISIONS OR DETERMINATIONS ON SPECIFIC MATTERS.

• To better enable the administrative body to exercise its quasi judicial

authority, it is also vested with what is known as determinative powers and
functions. Determinative powers are incidental powers that permit, direct,
dispense with, summarize, or equitably determine particular matters.

Classifications of Determinative Power: (DEEEDS)

a.Directing Powers-Those powers that order the doing or performance of particular

acts to ensure compliance with the law and are often exercised for corrective
purposes, eg order of reinstatement by the NLRC.

b. Dispensing Power It allows the b administrative officer to relax the general

operation of a law or to exempt from general-prohibition or relieve an individual
or a corporation from an affirmative duty. eg exemptiorts granted by BIR,
 c.Enabling Powers-Those powers that permit the doing of an act which the law
undertakes to regulate arid which would be unlawful without government
approval, e.g., issuance of driver's license by LTO.

d. Examining Power It is also called Investigatory power, it consists in requiring

production of bookis, papers, etc., the attendance of witnesses and compeilling
their testimony, Le, issuing of subpoenas (CRUZ, supra at 53-65).

e. Equitable Powers it permits the administrative tribunal to determine the taw upon a
particular state of facts and consider and make proper application of the rules of
equity (CRUZ, supra at 191).

f. Summary Powers It is the power to apply compulsion or force against persone or

property to effectuate a legal purpose without judicial warrants to authorize such
actions, eg, summary abetement of nuisance (SUAREZ, supra at 955). per

VI. DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

Res judicata or bar by prior judgment is a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been
adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and
conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for
the same cause.

• [17] Thus, "[a] final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and
constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim,
demand, or cause of action.

• [18] Res judicata is based on the ground that "the party to be affected, or some
other with whom he is in privity, has litigated the same matter in a former action
in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it
again.

• [19] It frees the parties from undergoing all over again the rigors of unnecessary
suits and repetitive trials. At the same time, it prevents the clogging of court
dockets. Equally important, it stabilizes rights and promotes the rule of law.

For the doctrine to apply, four requisites must be met:

• THE FORMER JUDGMENT OR ORDER MUST BE FINAL;

• IT MUST BE A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER ON THE MERITS;

 • IT MUST HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE PARTIES; AND

• THERE MUST BE, BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE SECOND ACTIONS,
IDENTITY OF PARTIES, OF SUBJECT MATTER AND OF CAUSE OF
ACTION.

Doctrine of Legislative Approval by Re-Enactment

The re-enactment of a statute, substantially unchanged, is persuasive indication of the

adoption by Congress of a prior executive construction (SEC v. Lalgo, G.R. No. 188639,
September 2, 2015).

Where a statute is susceptible of the meaning placed upon it by a ruling of the govemmerit
agency charged with its enforcement and the legislature thereafter re-enacts the provisions
without substantial change, such action is to some extent confirmatory that the ruling carries
out the legislative purpose (SEC v. Laigo, G.R. No. 188639, September 2, 2015).

Doctrine of Judicial Respect for Administrative or Practical Construction

When a statutory provision has not yet been interpreted by the Supreme Court, courts will
give high respect to the construction made by administrative or executive agencies
responsible for enforcing the law (Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs,
G.R. No. L-19337, September 30, 1969). Factors considered for applying this doctrine
include: the respect due to agencies with expertise in administration, their competence,
experience, and judgment; that agencies often draft the laws they interpret; and that they
provide practical insights on the statute’s implementation, identifying deficiencies or
improvements (PAGCOR v. Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction, Inc., G.R. No. 177333, April 24,
2009).

Operative Fact Doctrine

The general rule is that a void law or administrative act cannot create legal rights or duties.
The doctrine serves as an exception, meaning a judicial declaration of invalidity does not
necessarily erase all effects of a void act before the declaration (Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, October 8, 2013).

VII. CLASSIFICATIONS

ENABLING POWERS

Those that PERMIT the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate and would be
unlawful without government approval.

Ex. Issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business.

DIRECTING POWERS
Those that involve the corrective powers of public utility commissions, powers of assessment
under the revenue laws, reparations under public utility laws, an d awards under workmen's
compensation laws, and powers of abstract determination such as definition-valuation,
classification and fact finding.

DISPENSING POWER V. EXAMINING POWER V. SUMMARY POWER.

DISPENSING POWER

Exemplified by the authority to exempt or relax general prohibition or authority to relieve

from an affirmative duty. Its difference from licensing power is that dispensing power
sanctions a deviation from a standards.

EXAMINING POWER

This is also called as investigatory power. Requires production of books, paper,etc, and the
attendance of witnesses and compelling the testimony.

SUMMARY POWER

Apply compulsion or force against person and property to effectuate a legal purpose without
a judicial warrant to authorize such action.

VIII. SUBPOENAS, CONTEMPT

In General – Sec. 13, Book VII, Administrative Code

Special Statutory Grant

SUBPOENAS AND CONTEMPT IN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Sec. 13. Subpoena.—In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require the
attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent
data, upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general
relevance. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke
the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard
falls. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.

SUBPOENA POWER

• A subpoena is a formal order requiring a person to testify or produce

documents.

• Subpoenas are used to gather evidence and conduct investigations.

• Subpoenas can be issued to individuals, organizations, or entities within

the agencies jurisdiction.
TWO TYPES OF SUBPOENAS

• SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM is a type of subpoena that requires a person

to testify or give evidence in a proceeding. This type of subpoena is used to
compel a witness to appear and provide testimony.

• SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM is a type of subpoena that requires a person to

produce documents, records, or other tangible evidence. This type of subpoena is
used to obtain specific documents or evidence that is relevant to a case or
investigation.

Test for Valid Enforcement of Subpoena

A subpoena is considered valid if it meets the following conditions:
1. It falls within the agency’s authority.
2. The information requested is reasonably relevant.
3. The demand is not too indefinite.
(Evangelista v. Jarencio, G.R. No. L-29274, November 27, 1975)

Contempt power
Like the subpoena power, it is essentially judicial and not inherent to administrative bodies.
It must be expressly granted and must be used only in the exercise of the quasi-judicial
function (CRUZ, supra at 157).
When the administrative body exercises a ministerial function, it cannot exercise the power to
punish for contempt (Masangcay v. COMELEC; G.R. No. L-13827; September 28, 1962).

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS ARE A MEANS OF ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH

SUBPOENAS.

• Purpose: aim to punish individuals or organizations that fail to comply

with subpoenas.

• Types: Contempt proceedings can be civil or criminal in nature.

SPECIAL STATUTORY GRANT is a specific law or regulation that grants an agency the
power to issue subpoenas and enforce contempt proceedings.

• Purpose: it provide agencies with the authority to conduct investigations

and gather evidence.
 • Examples: Agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman and the
Securities and Exchange Commission have special statutory grants to issue
subpoenas and enforce contempt proceedings.

ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, APPEALS, AND RELEVANT CASES

ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH AND SEIZURE this involves government agencies

inspecting premises or seizing property for regulatory purposes, often with different
requirements than criminal searches.

The goal is typically to ensure compliance with laws related to health, safety, environment,
etc., rather than to gather evidence of a crime. While a judicial warrant is often required for
criminal searches, administrative searches may sometimes proceed with an administrative
warrant (if authorized by law) or even without a warrant under specific exceptions.

ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

• Conducted by regulatory agencies (e.g., BIR, Customs)

• • Used to check compliance with laws and regulations

• • No need for a search warrant in inspections of regulated businesses

• • Must observe reasonableness and due process

• • Judicial warrant is required for intrusive or coercive searches

WARRANT OF ARREST A warrant of arrest is issued by a judge after he had determined

the existence of a probable cause for the arrest of the accused, and to subsequently place the
accused in immediate custody so as not to frustrate the ends of justice. In ther words, a
warrant is issued once the judge had determined that the cused might have indeed committed
the crime, is not falsely charged therewith, and deserves to undergo the tribulations, expenses,
and anxiety of a public trial. (Viudez II v. CA, G.R. No. 152889, 05 June 2009

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND REVIEW

• Affected parties may appeal within the agency

• Review is usually by a higher administrative authority (e.g., department

secretary)

• After exhausting remedies, parties may seek judicial review via:

• Rule 43 – appeal to Court of Appeals

• Rule 65 – petition for certiorari in special cases

• Exhaustion of remedies is a rule, but there are exceptions.

KEY CASES IN PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE

• Stonehill v. Diokno (1967) General warrants are unconstitutional Administrative

searches must be specific and lawful

• Ang Tibay v. CIR (1940) Set due process standards in administrative proceedings.

POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES/BODIES PART II

A. QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADJUDICATORY POWER

The power of the administrative agency to determine questions of fact to which the legislative
policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself.

I. SOURCE OF POWER/BASIC PREMISES (SECS. 10-15, BOOK VII,

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE)

SECTION 10. COMPROMISE AND ARBITRATION.

- To expedite administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and obviate

expensive litigations, every agency shall, in the public interest, encourage amicable
settlement, comprise and arbitration.

· SECTION 11. NOTICE AND HEARING IN CONTESTED CASES.

(1) 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 the hearing.

(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues. If
not precluded by law, informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation,
agreed settlement or default.

(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings.

· SECTION 12. RULES OF EVIDENCE. - IN A CONTESTED CASE:

(1) The agency may admit and give probative value to evidence commonly accepted by
reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.

(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original is
not readily available. Upon request, the parties shall be given opportunity to compare the
copy with the original. If the original is in the official custody of a public officer, a certified
copy thereof may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses presented against him and to
submit rebuttal evidence.

(4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally cognizable
technical or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. The parties shall be notified and
afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed.

Section 13. Subpoena.

- In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of
witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon
request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance. Unless
otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the
Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. The
Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.

Section 14. Decision.

- Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The agency shall decide each
case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the
decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to
them.

Section 15. Finality of Order.

- 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.

II. NATURE

Quasi-judicial power allows administrative agencies to:

• Conduct hearings and investigations.

• Make findings of fact based on presented evidence.

• Apply legal standards to resolve disputes.

• Issue enforceable orders and rulings.

III. REQUISITES

For the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power, administrative agencies must adhere to the
following requirements:
 • Jurisdiction – The agency must have legal authority over the subject matter.

• Notice – Parties involved must be informed of proceedings.

• Hearing – A fair opportunity must be provided for parties to present their case.

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

Administrative Due Process

The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's
side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, and to submit any
evidence a party may have in support of his defense. The demands of due process are
sufficiently met when the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered (Nacion v. COA, G.R. No. 204757, March 17, 2015).

Cardinal Principles: (RESS-BAK)

1. Right to a hearing

2. Tribunal must consider the Evidence presented;

3. The Evidence must be Substantial;

4. The Decision must be Supported sufficiently;

5. The Decision must be Based on evidence adduced at the hearing or at least contained in the
records and disclosed to parties;

6. The Board or judge must Act on its or his own independent consideration of facts and law
of the case, and not simply. accept the view of the subordinate in arriving at a decision; and

7. The Decision must be rendered in such a manner that parties to controversy can Kriow
various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered (Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No.
L-46496, February 27, 1940; Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines v.
DOLE, G.R. No. 202275, July 17, 2018)

V. DETERMINATIVE POWERS

REFER TO THE AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES TO MAKE FINAL

DECISIONS OR DETERMINATIONS ON SPECIFIC MATTERS.

• To better enable the administrative body to exercise its quasi judicial

authority, it is also vested with what is known as determinative powers and
functions. Determinative powers are incidental powers that permit, direct,
dispense with, summarize, or equitably determine particular matters.

Classifications of Determinative Power: (DEEEDS)

 a.Directing Powers-Those powers that order the doing or performance of particular
acts to ensure compliance with the law and are often exercised for corrective
purposes, eg order of reinstatement by the NLRC.

b. Dispensing Power It allows the b administrative officer to relax the general

operation of a law or to exempt from general-prohibition or relieve an individual
or a corporation from an affirmative duty. eg exemptiorts granted by BIR,

c.Enabling Powers-Those powers that permit the doing of an act which the law
undertakes to regulate arid which would be unlawful without government
approval, e.g., issuance of driver's license by LTO.

d. Examining Power It is also called Investigatory power, it consists in requiring

production of bookis, papers, etc., the attendance of witnesses and compeilling
their testimony, Le, issuing of subpoenas (CRUZ, supra at 53-65).

e. Equitable Powers it permits the administrative tribunal to determine the taw upon a
particular state of facts and consider and make proper application of the rules of
equity (CRUZ, supra at 191).

f. Summary Powers It is the power to apply compulsion or force against persone or

property to effectuate a legal purpose without judicial warrants to authorize such
actions, eg, summary abetement of nuisance (SUAREZ, supra at 955). per

VI. DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

Res judicata or bar by prior judgment is a doctrine which holds that a matter that has been
adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and
conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for
the same cause.

• [17] Thus, "[a] final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and
constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim,
demand, or cause of action.

• [18] Res judicata is based on the ground that "the party to be affected, or some
other with whom he is in privity, has litigated the same matter in a former action
in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it
again.

• [19] It frees the parties from undergoing all over again the rigors of unnecessary
suits and repetitive trials. At the same time, it prevents the clogging of court
dockets. Equally important, it stabilizes rights and promotes the rule of law.
For the doctrine to apply, four requisites must be met:

• THE FORMER JUDGMENT OR ORDER MUST BE FINAL;

• IT MUST BE A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER ON THE MERITS;

• IT MUST HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION

OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE PARTIES; AND

• THERE MUST BE, BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE SECOND ACTIONS,
IDENTITY OF PARTIES, OF SUBJECT MATTER AND OF CAUSE OF
ACTION.

Doctrine of Legislative Approval by Re-Enactment

The re-enactment of a statute, substantially unchanged, is persuasive indication of the

adoption by Congress of a prior executive construction (SEC v. Lalgo, G.R. No. 188639,
September 2, 2015).

Where a statute is susceptible of the meaning placed upon it by a ruling of the govemmerit
agency charged with its enforcement and the legislature thereafter re-enacts the provisions
without substantial change, such action is to some extent confirmatory that the ruling carries
out the legislative purpose (SEC v. Laigo, G.R. No. 188639, September 2, 2015).

Doctrine of Judicial Respect for Administrative or Practical Construction

When a statutory provision has not yet been interpreted by the Supreme Court, courts will
give high respect to the construction made by administrative or executive agencies
responsible for enforcing the law (Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs,
G.R. No. L-19337, September 30, 1969). Factors considered for applying this doctrine
include: the respect due to agencies with expertise in administration, their competence,
experience, and judgment; that agencies often draft the laws they interpret; and that they
provide practical insights on the statute’s implementation, identifying deficiencies or
improvements (PAGCOR v. Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction, Inc., G.R. No. 177333, April 24,
2009).

Operative Fact Doctrine

The general rule is that a void law or administrative act cannot create legal rights or duties.
The doctrine serves as an exception, meaning a judicial declaration of invalidity does not
necessarily erase all effects of a void act before the declaration (Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, October 8, 2013).

VII. CLASSIFICATIONS
ENABLING POWERS

Those that PERMIT the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate and would be
unlawful without government approval.

Ex. Issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business.

DIRECTING POWERS

Those that involve the corrective powers of public utility commissions, powers of assessment
under the revenue laws, reparations under public utility laws, an d awards under workmen's
compensation laws, and powers of abstract determination such as definition-valuation,
classification and fact finding.

DISPENSING POWER V. EXAMINING POWER V. SUMMARY POWER.

DISPENSING POWER

Exemplified by the authority to exempt or relax general prohibition or authority to relieve

from an affirmative duty. Its difference from licensing power is that dispensing power
sanctions a deviation from a standards.

EXAMINING POWER

This is also called as investigatory power. Requires production of books, paper,etc, and the
attendance of witnesses and compelling the testimony.

SUMMARY POWER

Apply compulsion or force against person and property to effectuate a legal purpose without
a judicial warrant to authorize such action.

VIII. SUBPOENAS, CONTEMPT

In General – Sec. 13, Book VII, Administrative Code

Special Statutory Grant

SUBPOENAS AND CONTEMPT IN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Sec. 13. Subpoena.—In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require the
attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent
data, upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general
relevance. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke
the aid of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard
falls. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.

SUBPOENA POWER
 • A subpoena is a formal order requiring a person to testify or produce
documents.

• Subpoenas are used to gather evidence and conduct investigations.

• Subpoenas can be issued to individuals, organizations, or entities within

the agencies jurisdiction.

TWO TYPES OF SUBPOENAS

• SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM is a type of subpoena that requires a person

to testify or give evidence in a proceeding. This type of subpoena is used to
compel a witness to appear and provide testimony.

• SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM is a type of subpoena that requires a person to

produce documents, records, or other tangible evidence. This type of subpoena is
used to obtain specific documents or evidence that is relevant to a case or
investigation.

Test for Valid Enforcement of Subpoena

A subpoena is considered valid if it meets the following conditions:
1. It falls within the agency’s authority.
2. The information requested is reasonably relevant.
3. The demand is not too indefinite.
(Evangelista v. Jarencio, G.R. No. L-29274, November 27, 1975)

Contempt power
Like the subpoena power, it is essentially judicial and not inherent to administrative bodies.
It must be expressly granted and must be used only in the exercise of the quasi-judicial
function (CRUZ, supra at 157).
When the administrative body exercises a ministerial function, it cannot exercise the power to
punish for contempt (Masangcay v. COMELEC; G.R. No. L-13827; September 28, 1962).

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS ARE A MEANS OF ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH

SUBPOENAS.

• Purpose: aim to punish individuals or organizations that fail to comply

with subpoenas.

• Types: Contempt proceedings can be civil or criminal in nature.

SPECIAL STATUTORY GRANT is a specific law or regulation that grants an agency the
power to issue subpoenas and enforce contempt proceedings.

• Purpose: it provide agencies with the authority to conduct investigations

and gather evidence.

• Examples: Agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman and the

Securities and Exchange Commission have special statutory grants to issue
subpoenas and enforce contempt proceedings.

ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, APPEALS, AND RELEVANT CASES

ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH AND SEIZURE this involves government agencies

inspecting premises or seizing property for regulatory purposes, often with different
requirements than criminal searches.

The goal is typically to ensure compliance with laws related to health, safety, environment,
etc., rather than to gather evidence of a crime. While a judicial warrant is often required for
criminal searches, administrative searches may sometimes proceed with an administrative
warrant (if authorized by law) or even without a warrant under specific exceptions.

ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

• Conducted by regulatory agencies (e.g., BIR, Customs)

• • Used to check compliance with laws and regulations

• • No need for a search warrant in inspections of regulated businesses

• • Must observe reasonableness and due process

• • Judicial warrant is required for intrusive or coercive searches

WARRANT OF ARREST A warrant of arrest is issued by a judge after he had determined

the existence of a probable cause for the arrest of the accused, and to subsequently place the
accused in immediate custody so as not to frustrate the ends of justice. In ther words, a
warrant is issued once the judge had determined that the cused might have indeed committed
the crime, is not falsely charged therewith, and deserves to undergo the tribulations, expenses,
and anxiety of a public trial. (Viudez II v. CA, G.R. No. 152889, 05 June 2009

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND REVIEW

• Affected parties may appeal within the agency

• Review is usually by a higher administrative authority (e.g., department

secretary)
 • After exhausting remedies, parties may seek judicial review via:

• Rule 43 – appeal to Court of Appeals

• Rule 65 – petition for certiorari in special cases

• Exhaustion of remedies is a rule, but there are exceptions.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
GENERAL RULE
an administrative decision may be appealed to the courts
of justice only if the constitution or the law permits it or if
the issues to be reviewed involve questions of law. Outside
of these exceptions, the administrative decision is no more
reviewable by the courts of justice then are judicial decisions
reviewable by administrative bodies.
The right to appeal is not a constitutional right nor is it
embraced in the right to be heard and guaranteed by due
process. As the rule, therefore, the administrative decision
may be validly rendered final and in appealable at the
administrative level without allowing the aggrieved party a
final resort to the courts of justice.
It Is a recognized principle that courts of justice will generally
not interfere in executive and administrative matters which are
addressed to the sound discretion, of government agencies
such as the grant of licenses, permits leases or the approval,
rejection or revocation of applications therefor.
However, there is a limit to the difference accorded by the
courts to the actions of such agencies. jurisprudence is replete
with cases where the Supreme Court has applied the
exceptions rather than the general rule.
it is generally through that purely administrative and
discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the
courts, but when the exercise of such functions by the
administrative officer is tainted by a failure to abide by the
command of the law, then it is incumbent on the courts to set
matters right, with the Supreme Court having the last say on
the matter.
in the case of the Constitutional Commissions in example
the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit and
this Civil Service Commission, It is provided that, “unless
otherwise provided in this constitution or by law, Any
decision, order or ruling of each Commission may be brought
to the Supreme Court on surgery by the aggrieved party
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.” Republic act
No. 5434 breast scribes a uniform procedure for appeals to the
Court of Appeals from the decisions of the Social Security
Commission and the civil aeronautic board, among others.
On the basis of section 16 of the interim rules and guidelines
implementing section 9 (3) BP Blg.129, The Court of Appeals,
may “Review Final Decisions, Orders, awards or resolutions
of regional trial courts and of all quasi judicial bodies except
the commission on elections, the commission on audit, The
Commission on audit the sandiganbayan, and decisions issued
under the decisions issued under labor code of the Philippines
and by the central board of assessment appeals.”
Order appeals are prescribed by special laws, such as republic
act number 1125, providing for appealed to the court of tax
appeals of any decision rendered by the commissioner of
internal revenue, the commissioner of customs or any
provincial or city board of assessment appeals.
When it comes to questions of law, Administrative decision
there on our appealable to the courts of justice even without
legislative permission; Indeed, Even against legislative
Prohibition. The reason, According to the Supreme Court, Is
that the judicial tribunal cannot be deprived of their inherent
authority to decide questions of law, Initially or by way of
review of administrative decisions. being inherent, The
power cannot be withdrawn by the legislature through a law
making such a decision final and in appealable.
It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies
exercising quasi judicial or legislative power, there is an
underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such
agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no
right of review is given by statute. Even decisions of
administrative agencies which are declared “Final” by law are
not Exempted from judicial review when so warranted.
Thus, in Medalla v. Sayo, A decision of the civil Service
Commission appealed to and affirmed by the Office of the
President was subsequently brought to the court of first
instance in a petition for surgery prohibition and mandamus.
The basic issue was The validity of an appointment issued by
a City mayor under the Civil Service Decree. On the
petitioners argument that the court of first instance had no
jurisdiction to review decisions of the president and the Civil
Service Commission rendered in the exercise of their Quasi-
judicial functions. The Supreme Court declared—“In so far as
jurisdiction of the court below to review by surgery decisions
and / or resolutions of the Civil Service Commission and the
Presidential Executive Assistant is concerned, There should be
no question but that the power of judicial review should be
upheld”
“This jurisdiction does not depend upon an act of the
legislature authorizing it but is inherent in the courts of
general jurisdiction as an essential function of the Judicial
Department.”
As noted earlier, decisions of the Civil Service Commission
may, Under the new constitution, be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari for review.
In the old case of Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion, the supreme
court, through Justive Malcolm, declared— “eat certainly was
not intended by the legislative body to remove from the
jurisdiction of courts alright to review decisions of the Bureau
of Lands, for to do so would be to attempt something that
cannot be legally done. Giving forced to all possible
intendments regarding facts as found by the Director of
Lands, yet so much asrelatese to a question of law is in no
sense conclusive upon the courts, but is subject to review.”

Methods of Review
As already remarked, the methods of Judicial review are
prescribed by the Constitution, statutes or the rules of court.
these methods may be specific or general.
Thus, It is provided in Republic act no. 5434 that an
appeal from a final award, order or decision of the Patent
Office shall be taken by filing with said body and with the
Court of Appeals a notice of appeals within 15 days from
notice of such award, order or ruling, copies being served
on all interested parties. The aggrieved party in
proceedings taken before the insurance commissioner may
appeal from its decision in the manner as provided by law
and by the rules of court for appeals from the court of tax
appeals to the Court of Appeals.
The Administrative Code generally provides that an appeal
from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the
agency within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice
of appeal, and with the reviewing court petition. Copies of the
petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of
record. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the
issues involved and the grounds relied upon further review
and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order
appealed from, together with copies of such material portions
of the records as are referred to therein and other supporting
papers. The petition shall be under oath in shell show by
stating the specific material dates that it was filed within the
period fixed in the chapter.
The petition for review shall be perfected within 15 days from
receipt of the final administrative decision. one motion for
reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is denied the
movement showed perfect his appeal during the remaining
period For appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of
denial. If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the
appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to
perfect his appeal. The review proceeding shall be filed in the
court specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in any
court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the
provisions on venue of the rules of court.
Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as
whole. The findings of fact of the agency when supported by
substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically
provided otherwise by law.
In the absence of specific rules governing appeals from
administrative decisions, this special Civil Actions and other
remedies provided for in the rules of court may be availed of
in proper cases by an aggrieved party. For example, The
detention by the military authorities of a person claimed to be
invalidly arrested, or of an alien threatened with deportation
by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation, May be
challenged in a petition for habeas corpus. A public official
replaced by another person may assail the administrative
action in a quo warranto proceeding. If the Postmaster-
general refuses to allow certain materials to be coursed
through the mails, his refusal may be questioned in a petition
for mandamus. A petition for prohibition may be filed
against the Civil Service Commission to prevent it from
conducting an investigation alleged to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has justified this reliance on the rules of
court with respect to determination of Administrative
Agencies, including the Office of the President in this manner
—“The writ of certiorari is available in in this case if all
administrative decisions were conclusive upon us in any
event, there would have been no reason at all to offer this
extraordinary remedy to litigants who otherwise would have
been deprived of this only and last resort to the courts of
justice. This remedy applies to administrative decisions up to
the highest level and includes the decision at bar even if
rendered ‘by Authority of the President.’ the Sacramental
phrase does not remove these decisions from the certiorari
jurisdiction of the court or inhibit us from reversing them
when warranted by a clear showing of a grave abuse of
discretion.”
The Supreme Court may review the decisions of the Office
of the President on questions of law and jurisdiction when
properly raised. This does not mean Judicial Supremacy
over the office of the president by the performance by the
Supreme Court of a duty specifically enjoined upon by it the
constitution, as part of a system of checks and balances.
In the case of Industrial Power Sales, Inc. v. Sinsuat, the
supreme court instructed—
“Certain universally accepted axioms govern judicial review
through the extraordinary actions of certiorari or prohibition
of determinations of administrative officers or agencies; 1 st,
That before said auctions may be entertained, it must be
shown that all the administrative remedies prescribed by law
or ordinance have been exhausted; Second, That the
administrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside
only upon a clear showing that the administrative official or
tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or we'd
grave abuse of discretion.”
This standard has been unequivocally adopted by the 1987
Constitution which affirms the power of judiciary to
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort

There are two doctrines that must be considered in
connection with the judicial review of administrative
decisions. the first is the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
or Prior Resort and the second is the Doctrine of
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.
The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction does not warrant a court
to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the
jurisdiction over which is Initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence.
Well-entrenched Is the rule that courts will not interfere in
matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the
government agency and trusted with deregulation of activities
coming under is special and technical training and knowledge
of such agency. Administrative agencies are given a wide
latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of
their adjudicative functions, latitude which includes the
authority to take judicial notice of facts within their special
competence.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the
determination of administrative questions, which are
ordinarily questions of fact, by administrative agencies rather
than courts of justice.
In sherwill development corporation v. Sitio Sto. Niño
residents association, Inc., the supreme court, speaking
through Justice callejo, said—
“Indeed, the courts cannot and will not resolve A controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, especially, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge experience and services of
the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact.”
“The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a clean is
originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play
whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of
issues which, Under a regulatory scheme, have been placed
within the special competence hands of an administrative
body; in such case, The judicial process is suspended pending
referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.
And, in such case The court cannot arrogate unto itself the
authority to resolve a controversy, D jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence.
Thus, as explained by the supreme court in the case of Abejo
v. Delacruz.
“Indies era of clodgged 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 case of
grave abuse of discretion has become well nigh indispensable.
***between the power lodged in an administrative body and
court, the unmistakable trend has been to refer it to the
former.”
In accordance with this doctrine, The Supreme Court has
ruled that the Bureau of mines and geosciences, Under its
organic law, presidential decree number 1281, has jurisdiction
to determine the compensation payable to surface owners.
The regional trial court has no authority to make that
determination at the first instance. A similar ruling was made
by the Supreme Court in commissioner of customs v. navarro,
Where it was held that the court of first instance has no
jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture precedings, Over
which the Bureau of customs has authority. as previously
stated, jurisdiction over cases involving the sale of
subdivisions lots is with the housing and land use regulatory
board.
In GMA network, Inc. v. ABS-CBN broadcasting corporation,
the supreme court stressed the following points—
“Consequently, while it is true that the regular courts are
possessed of general jurisdiction over actions for damages, it
would nonetheless be proper for the courts to yield its
jurisdiction in favour of an administrative body when the
determination of underlying factual issues requires the special
competence or knowledge of the latter. In this era of clogged
court dockets, administrative boards or commissions with the
special knowledge, experience and keep ability to promptly
hear and determine disputes on technical matters or intricate
questions of facts, Subject to judicial review in case of grave
abuse of discretion, Are well nigh indispensable. between the
power lodged in an administrative body and a court, therefore,
the unmistakable trend is to refer it to the former.
The Supreme Court has also sustained A referral to an
administrative body of an issue involved in a suit over which
a regular court has, end had actually acquired, jurisdiction. At
issue in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of appeals, was
the validity of a Memorandum of agreement( a coal operating
contract) Which was sought To be rescinded In a suit before
the regional trial court, which clearly had jurisdiction over the
subject. the trial court ordered the rescission. The Court of
Appeals however, reversed said order, declaring that”The trial
court had no jurisdiction over the action considering that
under presidential decree number 1206, it is the BED
(BUREAU OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT)That has the
power to decide controversies relative to the exploration,
Exploitation and development of coal blocks.” The Supreme
Court modified said ruling of the Court of Appeals— “In
recent years, It has been the jurisprudential trend to apply the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases involving
matters that demand the special competence of administrative
agencies. It may occur that the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of a particular case, which means that the matter
involved is Judicial in character. However, if the case is such
that each determination requires the expertise, a specialized
skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies
because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are
involved, then relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by
the courts even though the matter is within the proper
jurisdiction of court this is the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction. It applies where a clean is originally cognizable
in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of
the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, Have been placed within the special
competence of an administrative body; In such case the
judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues
to the administrative body for its view.( United states v
western pacifi railroad Co.,352 U.S.59, italics supplied).
“Clearly, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application
in this case since the question of what cold areas should be
exploited and developed and which entity should be granted
coal operating contracts over said areas involves a technical
determination by the BED As the administrative agency in
possession of these specialized expertise to act on the matter.
The trial court does not have the competence to decide matters
concerning activities relative to the exploration, exploitation,
development End extraction of mineral resources like coal.
these issues preclude an initial judicial determination. it
behooves the court to stand aside even when apparently they
have statutory power to proceed in recognition of the primary
jurisdiction of administrative agency.”
“One thrust Of the multiplication of administrative agencies is
that the interpretation of contracts ended determination of
private rights thereunder is no longer a uniquely judicial
function, Exercisable only by our regular courts. ( Antipolo
Realty Corp. v. National housing authority.153 SCRA 399, at
407)
“The application of the doctrine of Primary jurisdiction,
however, does not call for the dismissal of the case below. it
need of the BED are threshed Out and determined. Thereby,
The principal purpose behind the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction is salutarily served.”
“Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of business
entrusted to an administrative agency or secured, and the
limited function of review by the judiciary are more rationally
exercised, by preliminary resort, for ascertaining and
interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues, to
agencies that are better equipped than courts by
specializations, by insight gained through experience, and by
more flexible procedure. ( Far East Conference v. United
states,342 U.S. 570)
Where two administrative agencies shared concurrent
jurisdiction with respect to a particular issue, the settled rule is
that the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the
complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the
others. Indeed, the second case filed old to be dismissed on
the ground of forum shopping.
Moreover, in Honasan II v. Panel of investigating prosecutors
of department of justice, The Supreme Court clarified that
”Where the concurrent authority is vested in both the
Department of Justice and the office of the ombudsman,The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction should operate to restrain the
Department of Justice from exercising its Investigative
authority if the case will likely be cognizable by the
sandiganbayan.”
There is no question that as teacher may vest exclusive
original jurisdiction in an administrative agency over
certain disputes and controversies falling within the
agency’s special expertise.
In Garments and Textile Export Board v. Court of Appeals, the
Supreme court Invoked a new The Doctrine of Primary
Jurisdiction when it decreed, that the power and jurisdiction to
adjudicate on the question of a private corporation’s
entitlement to export allocations,Which includes the
discretion to grant and disapprove sad export allocations,
belongs solely to the garments and textile export board, and
not to the regular courts.
In GSIS v. Civil service commission, the supreme court
explained—” When the law bestows upon a government body
the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific
matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is
exclusive, unless it be proved that another body is likewise
vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies
have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.
Observance of this doctrine is required to ensure consistency
in administrative findings and also because of the conceded
expertise of the administrative body, as compared to the
judicial tribunal, in resolving administrative questions in
general. Moreover, there is the doctrine of separation of
powers, which would restrain the courts from resolving
questions of a legislative character before the administrative
agencies have had an opportunity to resolve them initially.
The Supreme Court has emphasised that the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction applies only to the exercise by an
administrative agency of its quasi judicial function. Thus—“In
like manner, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only
where the administrative agency exercises its quasi judicial or
adjudicatory function. Thus, In cases involving specialized
disputes, the practice has been to refer the Same to an
administrative agency of special competence pursuant to the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The courts will not determine
a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the
resolution of the question by the administrative tribunal,
where the question the months the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
Experience and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a
uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the premises
of the regulatory statute administered. the objective of the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in
determining whether it should refrain from exercising its
jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has
determined some question or some aspect of some question
arising in the preceding before the court. it applies Where the
claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into
play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the
resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has
been placed within the special competence of an
administrative body; In such case, The judicial process is
suspended pending referral of such issues to the
administrative body for its review.
In the same case, the Supreme Court clarified that when what
is assailed indie validity or constitutionality of a rule or
regulation issued by the administrative agency in the
performance of its quasi legislative function, the regular
courts have jurisdiction to pass up on the same. the
determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued
by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the
constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
 once initial action is taken by the administrative agency in
accordance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the
administrative process must continue up to the highest level
before resort the judicial tribunals may be sought. This is
required under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
Doctrine of Exertion of Administrative Remedies
Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for
administrative review, and provides for a system of
administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts, For
reasons of law, Comity and convenience, we will not entertain
the cause unless the available administrative remedies have
been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been
given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed
in the administrative forum.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,
an administrative decision must first be appealed to the
administrative superiors up to the highest level before it may
be elevated to a Court of Justice for review. Accordingly, to
illustrate, review may be sought only if appeal is first made of
a decision: Off the president of the university of the
Philippines to its board of regents; A board of special inquiry
to the commissioner of immigration and deportation, which is,
in turn, reviewable by the secretary of justice; Of the director
of mines to the secretary of agriculture and natural resources;
and of a provincial treasurer to the secretary of finance.
The Supreme Court has explained this doctrine in the
following manner—
“Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,
resource through court action cannot prosper until after all
such administrative remedies would have first been exhausted.
The doctrine does not warrant according to arrogate and two
itself the authority to resolve Or interfere in a controversy, the
jurisdiction over which is lodged initially with an
administrative body of special competence.”
“When an adequate remedy may be had within the executive
department of the government, But nevertheless a litigant fails
or refuses to avail himself of the same, did judiciary shall
Decline to interfere. these traditional attitude of the court is
base not only on convenience but likewise on respect,
convenience of the party-litigants and respect for a Co-equal
office in the government. if a remedy is available within the
administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before
resort can be made to the courts.”
The Supreme Court has further explained that—
“the Thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies is the courts must allow the administrative agencies
to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities
within the specialized areas of their respective competence.
(PCGG v. Peña, 159 SCRA 556)It is presumed that an
administrative agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass up
on a matter, we'll decide the same correctly, or correct any
previous error committed in its forum. Furthermore, reasons
of law, comity and convenience prevent the courts from
entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative
agencies. Hence, premature resort to the court necessarily
becomes a fatal to the cause of action of the petitioner.”
In the case of Sytems Plus Computer College of Caloocan
City v. Local Government of Caloocan City, the supreme
court ruled that—
“The petitioner cannot bypass the authority of the concerned
administrative agencies and directly seek redress from the
courts on the pretexts of raising a supposedly pure questions
of law without violating the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Hence, when the law provides for
remedies against the action of an administrative board, body
or officer, as in the case at bar, relief to the courts can be made
only after Exhausting all the remedies provided therein.
Otherwise stated, before seeking the intervention off the
courts, it is a precondition that petitioner should first
avail(sic)Of all the means afforded by the administrative
processes.”
A party aggrieved must not merely initiate the prescribed
administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also must pursue
it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial
intervention in order to give That administrative agency and
opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly and
prevent unnecessary and premature resort to court.
A.Reasons
Among the reasons for the doctrine are the following:
1. No the administrative superiors, if given the opportunity,
can correct the errors committed by their subordinates.
 2. Courts should as much as possible refrain from
disturbing and findings of administrative bodies in
deference to the doctrine of separation of powers.
3. On practical grounds, it is best that the courts, which are
burdened enough as they are with judicial cases, should
not be saddled with the review of administrative cases.
4. Judicial review of administrative cases is usually
affected through this special civil actions of Certiorari,
Mandamus and prohibition, and which are available only
if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
The underlying principle of the rule of exhaustion of
administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the
administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass
up on the matter, we'll decide the same correctly.
Indeed, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is in fact
encouraged before this sort is made to the courts as a matter of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, To afford the agency
rendering the judgment an opportunity to correct any error it
may have committed through a misapprehension of facts or
misappreciation of the evidence.
In the case Mr. Justice Torres, in Paat v. Court of Appeals,
explained this doctrine as follows—
“This court in a long line of cases has consistently held that
before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court,
It is a Pre-condition that he should have availed of all the
means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a
remedy within the administrative machinery can still be
resorted 2 by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction then such a remedy should be exhausted first
before the court’s judicial power can be sought. The
premature intervention of courts is fatal to one’s cause of
action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel,
the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of course of
action. This doctrine of Exhaustion Of administrative
remedies was not without its practical and legal reasons, for
one thing, Availment of administrative remedy entails lesser
expenses and provides for a speedier Disposition of
controversies. it is no less true to state that the courts of
justice for reasons of comity and convenience will shy away
from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has
been completed and complied with so as to give the
administrative agency concerned every opportunity To correct
its error and to dispose of the case. However, we are not amiss
to reiterate that the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies as tested by a battery of cases is not Ironclad rule.
This doctrine is a relative 1 and its flexibility is called upon by
the peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and
circumstantial settings of a case. Hence, it is disregarded
(1)When there is a violation of due process, (2)When the issue
involved is purely legal,(3)When the administrative action is
patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
(4)When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative
agency concerned,(5)When there is irreparable injury, (6)
When the respondent Is a department secretary whose acts as
an alter ego of the president bears the implied and assumed
approval of the latter, (7)When to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be unreasonable,(8)when it
would amount to a notification of the claim,(9)When the
subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings,
(10)When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and
Adequate remedy, and (11) when there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
It has been held, however, that the doctrine need not be
observed when not expressly required by law or when the
state should providing for the administrative remedy is merely
permissive. The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies
applies only where there is an express legal provision
requiring such administrative step as a condition precedent to
taking action in court. According to the case of Hokyns v.
National City bank of New York, It is discretionary upon the
court to permit an aggrieved party to institute a court action
without first resorting to an administrative remedy for the
purpose. Moreover, it has been ruled that in questioning the
validity of constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an
administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative
remedies before going the court. These principles applies only
where the act of the administrative agency concerned was
performed pursuant to its quasi judicial function, and not
Wendy assailed act pertained to its rule-making or Quasi
Legislative Power.
In the case of Estrada v. Court of Appeals, and Batelec Ii
electric cooperative, Inc. v Energy Industry Administration
Bureau(EIAB), The Supreme Court appears to have confused
this doctrine with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Thus, in
the Estrada Case, the court said—
“The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
requires the resort be first made with the administrative
authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under
their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to a Court
of Justice for review. A premature invocation of accords
intervention renders D complained without a cause of action
and dismissible on such ground.”(Emphasis supplied.)
In Batelec case, the Supreme court reitrated as follows—
“The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls
for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities to
accord to them the prior opportunity to decide controversies
within their competence before the same may be elevated to
the courts of justice for review. reasons of law, comity and
convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper
for determination by administrative agencies.(Italics
suppliesd)
In the case of Morcal v. Laviña, The Supreme Court, citing
the Estrada case, again described the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies in similar manner. Thus—“The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative Remedies requires
that resort be first made to the administrative authorities in
case of falling under their jurisdiction to allow them to carry
out their function and discharge their responsibilities within
the specialized areas of their competence.
adding to the confusion, the Supreme Court declared that”
This is because the administrative agency concerned is in the
best position to correct any previous error committed in its
forum” In this case, the Supreme Court was obviously
speaking about this up clean of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, ask and be clearly gleaned from the following—
“Note that the case arose from the protest filed by respondents
against petitioners free patent application for the subject
unregistered agricultural land. Clearly, the matter comes
within the exclusive primary jurisdiction of the DENR in the
exercise of its quasi judicial powers. The impugned Orders of
the DNR regional office are subject to review by the DENR
Head Office. Petitioner cannot circumvent this procedure by
simply invoking a supposed loss of faith in the said agency.”
B.EXCEPTIONS
Furthermore, there are many specific instances when, by
decision of the Supreme Court, the doctrine has been held
inapplicable even if there is a general requirement for its
observance .Among the established exceptions are:
1. When the question raised is purely legal.
For example, In the case of Municipality of La Trinidad v. CFI
of Baguio, the supreme court declared:
“The petition filed by the respondent Oidi for responded court
contains allegations which removed the case from the ambit
of the general rule. She repeatedly asserted there in the want
of authority of mayor abalos to order her suspension and the
similar lack of authority of the members of the municipal
council to conduct an administrative investigation against her
and to order her dismissal from the service. Said averments
indisputably make out a legal question that is properly
addressed to a regular Court of Justice rather than to an
administrative body. what is more, her clean that she was
denied the right of due process makes the rule of exhaustion
of administrative remedies inapplicable.”
The petitioner In valmonte v. Belmonte Filed A petition for
mandamus to compel the head of the government service
insurance system to reveal certain documents, pursuant to his
constitutional right to information, without first “Exhausting
all means of administrative redress.” In granting his petition,
the Supreme Court declared—
“Among the settled principles in administrative law is that
before a party can be allowed to resort to the courts he is
expected to have exhausted all means of administrative
redress available under the law. the courts, for reasons of law,
comity and convenience will not entertain a case unless the
available remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate
authorities Have been given opportunity to act and correct the
errors committed in the administrative forum. However, the
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject
to settled exception, Among which is when only a question of
flow is involved.
Ordinarily, a petition for mandamus would be considered
premature if there are administrative remedies available to a
petitioner.
2. When the administrative body is in estoppel.
In the case of Tan v. Veterans Backpay commission, It was
held that the respondent administrative body could not invoke
the doctrine after denying the petitioner's backpay application
on the ground that aliens were not covered by the backpay law
despite an opinion of the secretary of justice. Speaking for the
Supreme Court, justice J.B.L reyes declared—
“The respondent Commission is in estoppel to invoke the rule
of exhaustion of administrative remedies, considering that in
its resolution, It declared that the opinions of the secretary of
justice were advisory in nature, which may either be accepted
or ignored by the officers seeking the opinion, and any
aggrieved party has discord for recourse, Thereby leading the
petitioner to conclude that only a final judicial ruling in her
favor would be accepted by the Commission”
3. When the ark complained of these patently illegal.
In the case Mangubat v. Osmeña, The services of petitioners,
Who were civil service eligible, where somerley terminated
on the ground that their positions in the Police Department
were primarily confidential and the new mayor had no
confidence in them. In sustaining dare direct resort to judicial
action without exhausting administrative remedies, the
Supreme Court declared—
“When, from the very beginning, the action of the city mayor
is patently illegal; When the mayor has acted without
jurisdiction, or has committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction; When his act is clearly and
obviously devoid of any colour of authority, as in The case at
bar, The employee adversely affected may forthwith seek the
protection of the judicial department notwithstanding his
failure to appeal the order of dismissal to the department
head.”
A similar ruling was made by the Supreme Court in
Laganapan v. Asedillo Which involved a mayor who
summerly dismissed an employee ”Without any semblance of
compliance or even an attempt to comply with the elementary
rules of due process. no charges were filed, nor was a hearing
conducted in order to give the appelle and opportunity to
defend himself.”
4. When there is urgent need for judicial intervention.
In the case of Azate v. Aldana, the supreme court observed—
‘It appears from the petition that the reason for filing it
without awaiting the final action on the part of the respondent
director of public schools was the urgency of preventing the
automatic reversion as of July 1, 1958 after the expiration of
the then current fiscal year, of the some appropriated in R.A
no. 2024 For the adjustment off the salary of public school
officials and the teachers pursuant to RA no. 842. Petitioner
contends that if he waited for the final decision on his petition
for reconsideration, which was not forthcoming, and in fact
did not come, before June 30, 1958 whatever action may
thereafter be taken by respondent, even if favorable to
petitioner would be of no avail after the reversion of the funds
appropriated for the purpose of salary adjustment. Hence, he
claims that to require him to exhaust the administrative
remedies would, in the circumstances of the case, in effect
amount to a nullification of his claim.”
 5. When the claim involved is small.
In the case of Cipriano v. Marcelino, A judicial complaint for
recovery of salaries and Commutation of accumulated leaves
in the total amount of 949 pesos Was sought to be dismissed
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Supreme
Court held—
“We have held time and again that the principle of exhaustion
of administrative remedies is not without exception, nor is it a
condition president to judicial relief. The principle may be
disregarded when it does not provide a plain, Speedy and
adequate remedy. It may and should be relaxed when its
application may cause great end irreparable damage.
It Is altogether 2 obvious that to require the petitioner cipriano
to go all the way to the president of the Philippines on appeal
in the matter of the collection of the small total of 949 pesos
would not only be oppressive but would be patently
unreasonable. by the time her appeal shall have been decided
by the president, the amount of much more than 949 pesos,
which is the total sum of her claim, would in all likelihood
have been spent.”
6. When irreparable damage will be suffered.
In the case of Lara v. Cloribel The Supreme Court, Speaking
of the doctrine of exhaustion, explained—
“Such rule may be relaxed when it’s application may cause
great and irreparable damage which cannot otherwise be
prevented except by taking the opportune appropriate court
action. stated otherwise, the rule is inapplicable if it should
appear that an irreparable damage and injury will be suffered
by a party if he should await, before taking court action. the
final action of the administrative official concerned on the
matter. this is the situation herein obtained. Because of the
conflict existing between petitioner and respondent company
regarding a portion of the logging area awarded to them, As
well as the use of the logging Rd. constructed by the company,
the case was taken to the secretary of agriculture and natural
resources for his final resolution, Who in the mean time
directed petitioner to refrain from entering the operating
within the contested area until the said case shall have been
finally decided but before such resolution could come, De lara
Disregarded the directive and continued operating within the
contested area to the irreparable damage and injury of the
company. these acts of defiance prompted the company to
take the needed appropriate action. in the circumstances, we
find the action taken by respondent court proper in justified
even if no final decision has as yet been rendered by the
secretary of agriculture and natural resources.”
7. When there is no other plain, Speedy and adequate
remedy.
In National Development Co. v. Collector of customs, an
administrative fine was imposed upon A vessel for carrying
and manifested cargo but without giving the ship authorities
of hearing. the supreme Two judicial action without first
appealing the collector’s decision to the Commissioner of
Customs, saying that such appeal was not a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in ordinary course of law as would prevent
petitioners from taking the present action for it is undisputed
that responded collector has acted in utter disregard of the
principle of Due process.”
8. When strong public interest is involved.
In the case of arrow transportation corporation versus board of
transportation, the Supreme Court allowed resort to judicial
action notwithstanding that the provisional permit to operate
issued by the respondent to an Other company was still
pending reconsideration. it declared that The court was
impelled to go into the merits of the controversies at this
stage, not only because of the importance of the issue raised
but also because of the strong public interest in having the
matter settled. As was set forth in executive order number 101
which prescribes the procedure to be followed by respondent
board, it is the policy of the state, as swiftly as possible, to
improve the deplorable Condition of vehicular traffic, obtain
maximum utilization of existing public motor vehicles and
eradicate the harmful and unlawful trade of clandestine
operators, as well as update the standards of those carrying
such business, “Making it Imperative to provide, among other
urgently needed measures, more expeditious methods in
prescribing, redefining, or modifying the lines and mode of
operation of public utility motor vehicles that now or
thereafter may operate in this country.”
9. When the subject of the controversy is private land.
The Supreme Court held in Tiangco v. Lau chang that, As the
contested lot was not a part of the public domain but a private
ownership acquired by the government for resale to private
persons, any aggrieved party, such as one claiming the
preferential right to buy the lot, could bring an action in court
without the need of exhausting administrative remedies.
10. In quo warranto proceedings.
As the Supreme Court put it in corpus versus quaderno in
sustaining the petitioners direct resort to judicial action:
“While it may be desirable that administrative remedies be
first resorted to, no one is compelled or bound to do so. I said
remedies neither are prerequisite to nor bar The institution of
Quo warranto Proceedings, it follows that he who claims the
right to hold a public office allegedly Usurped by another and
who desires to seek redress in the courts should file the proper
judicial action within the Reglementary period. Public interest
requires that the right to a public office should be determined
as speedily as practicable.”
It Is significant that the Supreme Court has further ruled that
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies need not
be applied when the issues submitted have become moot and
academic. it has Also disregarded questions raised as to,
Among others, failure to exhaust administrative remedies
because of the demands of public interest, including the need
for stability in the public service, and because of the serious
implication of said cases on the administration of the
Philippines civil service and the right of public servants.”
In the case Og Regino v. Panggasinan colleges of science and
technology, The Supreme Court further declared that the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies has no
application where a student is not asking for the reversal of
the policies of an educational institution nor demanding that
she be allowed to take the final examinations that she was
prevented from taking but Is praying for damages.
C. APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT
Of special interest is the question of whether or not a decision
of the cabinet member has to be appealed first to the president
before it may be brought to a Court of Justice. jurisprudence
on this matter is rather indecisive.
In the early case of Demaisip v. Court of appeals, the court
Held that appealed to the president was not necessary because
the cabinet member was after all his alter ego and, under the
doctrine of political agency, the acts of the Secretary are the
acts of the President.
This view was abandoned in Calo v. Fuertes, Where it was
held that appealed to the president was the final step in the
administrative process and therefore a condition precedent to
appeal to the courts. In Bartulata v. Peralta, However, the
court reinstated the Demaisip Doctrine, Again on the basis of
the alter ego justification.
Tan v. Director of forestry Thereafter revived Calo And again
required appealed to the president as a prerequisite to an
appeal of a cabinet members decision to the courts of justice.
Appeal to the president, It was held, was a plain, speedy
inadequate remedy That should preclude judicial intervention
for the time being. The supreme court explained—
“Petitioner appellant, in his petition, allege that he has
exhausted all his administrative remedies to no avail as
respondents appellees Have failed, neglected, refused and
continue to refuse to allow petitioner appellant to continue
operation in the area covered by his timber license. he further
alleged that he has Neither recourse by way of appeal, nor any
plain, Speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law except through this special civil action. As the last official
act of the respondent appellee secretary of agriculture and
natural resources in declaring void the timber license referred
to above after denying petitioner appellants motion for
reconsideration, Is the last administrative act. Petitioner
appellant relies on the case of Demaisip v. Court of Appeals,
Wherein it was held that the failure of the plaintiff to appeal
from the adverse decision of the secretary to the president
cannot preclude the plaintiff from taking court action in view
of the Terry that the secretary of the department is merely an
alter ego after president. the presumption is that the action of
the secretary bears the employment sanction of the president
unless the same is disapproved by the latter.
“To this we cannot agree, petitioner appellant did not appeal
the order of the respondent secretary of agriculture and natural
resources to the president of the Philippines, who issued
executive proclamation number 238 withdrawing the area
from private exploitation, and establishing it as the Olongapo
watershed forest reserve. considering that the president has
the power to review on appeal the orders or acts of the
respondents appellees, The failure of the petitioner appellant
to take the appeal is failure on his part to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Thus, the court, in the case of Calo v.
Fuertes, held that:
“At any rate, the appellants contention that, as the secretary of
agriculture and natural resources is the author ego of the
president in his acts or decisions are also those of the latter, he
need not appeal from the decision or opinion of the former to
the latter, and that, such being the case, after he had appealed
to the secretary of agriculture and natural resources from the
decision or opinion of the director of lands he had exhausted
all the administrative remedies, is untenable.
The withdrawal of the appeal taken to the president of the
Philippines is tantamount to not appealing at all thereto.
Search withdrawal is fatal, because the appeal to the president
is the last step he should take in an administrative case.”
D.EFFECT OF NON COMPLIANCE
In any event, it should be noted that failure to exhaust
administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the
court and merely results in the lack of a cause of action which
may be invoked in a motion to dismiss.
In the case of National Development Company v. Hervilla, the
supreme court declared—
“It is now well settled that the administrative and the
disposition of public lands are committed by law to the
director of lands primarily and ultimately, To the secretary of
agricultural and natural resources. The jurisdiction of the
Bureau of lands is confined to the determination of the
respective rights of rival claimants to public lands or to cases
which involve disposition and alienation of public lands. The
jurisdiction of courts in possessory actions involving public
lands is limited to the determination of who has the actual,
physical possession or occupation of the land in question
(Enforceable entry cases, before the municipal courts) Or, the
better right of possession (in Accion Publiciana, in cases
Before courts of first instance, now regional courts.
Records do not show that private respondent Wilfredo
Hervillia ever filed a motion for a consideration of decision of
the director of lands issuing free patent over the lands in
dispute in favor of petitioners predecessor- In -interest.
Neither did he appeal said decision to the secretary of
agriculture and natural resources, nor did he appeal to the
office of the president of the Philippines. in short, Hervilla
failed to exhaust administrative remedies, a flaw, Which to
our mind, is fatal to a court review. the decision of the director
of lands has now become final. The courts may no longer
interfere with such decision.”
In this ground to dismiss the court action is not properly or
seasonably invoked, the court may proceed to hear the case.
exhaustion must be raised at the earliest possible time, even
before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting
a claim, by a motion to dismiss:Otherwise, such a ground for
dismissal would be deemed waived.
Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the
court. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed this in a
long line of decisions. The only effect of non compliance with
this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a course of
action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. if not
invoke at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and
the court can take cognizance of the case and try it.
As discussed earlier, a failure to exhaust administrative
remedies may also constitute forum shopping which would
likewise result in a dismissal of a simultaneous resort to a
regular court for purposes of obtaining relief. Thus—
“Forum shopping exist when both actions involve the same
transactions, same essential facts and circumstances in raise
identical causes of action, ,Subject matter and issues. Such
elements are evidently present in both the proceedings before
the MGB and before the trial court. The case instituted with
the regional trial court was thus correctly ordered dismissed
by the appellate Court on the ground of forum shopping.
Besides, not only did petitioner commit forum shopping but it
also failed to exhaust administrative remedies by opting to go
ahead in seeking reliefs from the court even while those same
reliefs were appropriately awaiting resolution by the MGB.
Furthermore, as previously noted, the court has the discretion
to require the observance of doctrine and may, if it sees fit,
dispense with it and proceed with the disposition of the case.
at any rate, there is a ruling to the effect that a motion for a
consideration must be filed before the special civil action for
certiorari may be availed of.
DOCTRINE OF FINALTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION
is a principle in administrative law that emphasizes the need
for administrative remedies to be fully exhausted before
seeking judicial review. This doctrine ensures that
administrative agencies have the opportunity to correct errors
and resolve issues within their specialized field before courts
intervene
Key Concepts:
General Rule: Courts will not intervene unless the
administrative action is final, meaning all internal appeals or
motions within the agency have been exhausted.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: A party must
pursue all available administrative remedies before resorting
to judicial review.
Rationale:
Administrative agencies have specialized expertise.
Promotes efficiency and reduces unnecessary litigation.
Helps manage judicial workload.
Respects the administrative process.
Exceptions:
Irreparable Injury: Courts may intervene if there is a risk of
irreparable harm.
Violation of Constitutional Rights: If an administrative officer
acts beyond their authority or violates the law, judicial
intervention may be warranted.
Lack of Other Remedies: If no other review process exists and
the complainant faces significant harm, courts may step in

DOCTRINE OF RIPENESS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

The doctrine of ripeness for judicial review ensures that courts
only hear cases that have fully developed into actual
controversies, preventing premature adjudication of disputes
that are hypothetical or speculative.
Key Principles:
Maturity of the Issue – The case must present a concrete
legal dispute, not one based on uncertain future events.
Avoidance of Premature Litigation – Courts refrain from
ruling on matters that are not yet fully formed, allowing
administrative agencies to address issues first.
Two-Part Test for Ripeness:
Fitness for Judicial Decision – The legal question must be
well-defined and ready for resolution.
Hardship to the Parties – If delaying judicial review would
cause significant harm, the case may be considered ripe.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OF TRIAL

COURTS WITH CO EQUAL ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES
The Doctrine of Non-Interference by Trial Courts with Co-
Equal Administrative Bodies is a principle in Philippine
administrative law that underscores the independence and
autonomy of quasi-judicial administrative agencies, and bars
regular courts (especially trial courts) from interfering with
their actions or proceedings, except under specific conditions.
The doctrine provides that courts, especially trial courts,
should not interfere with the proceedings, decisions, or actions
of administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions,
because these agencies are considered co-equal with judicial
bodies in their respective spheres of expertise.
QUESTIONS REVIEWABLE
two kinds of questions are reviewable by the courts of justice,
to wit, The question of fact and the question of law.
It has already been stressed that when it comes to the first,
review of the administrative decision lies in the discretion of
the legislature, which may or may not permit it as it sees fit.
Denial of this remedy does not violate due process for the
right to appeal is generally not deemed embraced in the right
to a hearing. but when it comes to the question of law, The
administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of
justice independently of legislative permission or even against
legislative prohibition. the reason is that the judiciary cannot
be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions on
questions of law, whether made initially by lower courts and
more so by an administrative body only.
There is a question of law when the doubt of difference arises
as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. there is a
question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the
truth or the falsehood of the alleged facts.
In Atlas consolidated mining and Development Corporation
versus factoran, The Supreme Court held—
“The court has repeatedly ruled that judicial review of the
decision of an administrative official is of course subject to
certain guideposts laid down in many decided cases.Thus, for
instance, findings of fact in such decision should not be
disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. but review is
justified when there has been a denial of due process, or
mistake of law or fraud, collusion or arbitrary action in the
administrative proceeding. When the procedure are
committed, or when grieve abuse of discretion, arbitrariness
of capriciousness is manifest.
In general, courts have no supervising power over the
proceedings and the actions of the administrative departments
of the government. This is generally true with respect to acts
involving the exercise of judgment or discretion, and findings
of fact. findings of fact by an administrative board or official,
following a hearing, are binding upon the courts and will not
disturbed except when the board or official has gone beyond
his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or
clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with
grave abuse of discretion. It has been repeatedly held that
there is a grave abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of
the writ of certiorari only when there is Capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal
hostility amounting to an invasion of positive duty, or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in
contemplation of law.
It Is interesting to note that the regular courts usually refrain
from interfering in the performance by administrative bodies
of purely administrative functions. Thus—
“Clearly, the designation of respondents was well within the
prerogative of the DECS Officials. It behooves the court to
refrain from unduly interfering with the exercise of such
administrative prerogative. after all, it is well settled that
administrative decisions on matters within the jurisdiction of
administrative bodies are entitled to respect and can only be
set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error
of law.
Likewise, In the case of department of agrarian reform versus
Department of Education, culture and sports, the Supreme
Court stated as follows—
“Since the identification and selection of CARP Beneficiaries
are matters involving strictly the administrative
implementation of the CARP, It behooves the courts exercise
great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue
unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the
administrative agencies”
Indeed, administrative decisions on matters within the
jurisdiction of administrative bodies are entitled to respect and
can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of Discretion,
fraud or error of law.
A. Question of Fact
Administrative agencies findings of fact on matters falling
under their jurisdiction are generally accorded respect, if not
finality.”By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of
said administrative agencies over matters falling under their
jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment
thereon: thus, Their findings of fact are generally accorded
great respect, if not finality, way to Fords. the findings of fact,
of an administrative agency must be respected so long as they
are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence
may not be overwhelming or even preponderant. it is not the
task of the appellate court to weigh once more the evidence
submitted before the administrative body and to substitute its
own judgment for that of the administrative agency and
respect of sufficiency of evidence.
Even if allowed to review administrative decision on
questions of fact, Courts of justice generally defer to such
decisions and will decline to disturb them except only where
there is a clear showing of arbitrariness or grave abuse of
discretion. It has further been ruled that decisions or findings
of the director of lands, as approved by the secretary of
environment and natural resources, appoint questions of fact
are conclusive upon and not subject to review by the courts in
the absence of any showing that such decisions our findings
are tainted with fraud of mistake. Indeed, while courts usually
acquired great respect to the technical findings of
administrative agencies in the fields of their expertise, even if
they are Infelicitously worded, Such rule finds no application
where the finding is nothing more than a bare assertion,
unsupported by substantial evidence.
A question of fact is, as a general rule, the concern solely of
an administrative body so long as there is substantial evidence
of record To sustain its Action. even if such evidence might
not be overwhelming or preponderant.
As long line of cases establishes the basic rule that the courts
will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound
discretion of government agencies and trusted with the
regulation of activities coming under their special knowledge
and training. However, when an administrative agency renders
an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets
a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at
best, advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what
the law means. Thus, an action by an administrative body may
be set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of
law, Abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave appears of
discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the
law.
Accordingly, In the aforecited case of atlas Consolidated
mining and Development Corporation versus factoran, the
supreme court observed—
“A careful study of the records show that none of the above
circumstances is present in the case at bar, which would
justify the overturning of the findings of fact of the director of
mines which were affirmed by the Office of the President. On
the contrary, in accordance with the prevailing principle that
in reviewing administrative decisions, the reviewing court
cannot re examine the sufficiency of the evidence as if
originally instituted therein, and receive additional evidence,
that was not submitted to the administrative agency
concerned, the findings of fact in this case must be respected.
as ruled by the court, they will not be disturbed so long as
they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not
overwhelming or preponderant.”
When the board of discipline of the Ateneo De Manila
university, a private educational institution, decided after due
proceeding, to expel a Student who had slapped A cafeteria
waitress, the Supreme Court declined to review the sideboards
findings of fact and ruled—
“By reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained
from the handling of specific matters falling under their
respective jurisdiction, we ordinarily accord respect if not
finality to factual findings of administrative tribunals.
Courts usually uphold the factual findings of the
administrative body under reasonable assumption that it is
possessed of the necessary expertise, let alone the opportunity,
to resolve the factual question correctly and clearly.
the policy of the courts is not to interfere with the exercise by
administrative bodies of their adjudicatory functions unless
there be a clear showing of arbitrary action or palpable and
serious error. the legal presumption is that official duty has
been duly performed, and it is particularly strong as regards
administrative agencies vested with powers said to be quasi
judicial in nature, in connection with the enforcement of laws
affecting particular fields of activity, the proper regulation end
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.
it is an accepted doctrine in administrative law the
determination of an administrative agency as to the operation,
implementation and application of law would be accorded
great weight considering that this is specialize government
bodies are, By their nature and functions, in the best position
to know what they can possibly do or not to do, under
prevailing circumstances.
findings of administrative agency on matters falling within its
competence would not be disturbed by the courts, specially
with respect of factual findings, which are accorded respect if
not finally because of the special knowledge and expertise
gained by the tribunals from handling specific matters falling
under their jurisdiction. Indeed, Osias Academy v. DOLE, The
Supreme Court stated that findings of administrative agencies
which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only
respect but even finality.
findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their
specific fields of expertise are afforded great weight by the
courts and, in the absence of substantial showing that such
findings are made from erroneous estimation of the evidence
presented, they are conclusive and, in the interests of stability
of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed.
Thus, in Sierra Madre trust versus secretary of agriculture and
natural resources, the Supreme Court held as conclusive the
findings of the director of mines, as a fear and by the secretary
of agriculture and natural resources, saying that, interpretation
of laws entrusted to their administration is entitled to great
respect. The Supreme Court has also ruled the findings of
administrative agencies which have acquired expertise
because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are
generally accorded not only respect but even finality. this
policy is especially applicable in the grant of licenses, for
meat and Leases of the approval, Rejection or revocation of
applications therefore. Indeed, the opinions and rulings of
officials of the government called upon to execute or
implement administrative Laws command respect and weight.
According to the earlier case of Lacuesta versus Herrera
“Where, as in decrease at bar, there is no showing that there
was fraud, collusion, arbitrariness, illegality, imposition or
mistake on the part of the office of the president or at
department head (such as the secretary of agriculture and
natural resources in the present case) In rendering their
questioned decision or of a total lack of substantial evidence
to support the same, such administrative decisions are entitled
to great weight and respect and will not be interfered with by
the courts.
Indeed, as a general rule, factual findings of administrative
agencies, that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are
conclusive a point and generally not reviewable by this court.
However the Supreme Court has recognized several
exceptions to this rule, to wit:
1. When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
Surmises or conjectures;
2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible
3. When there is grave abuse of discretion
4. When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts
5. When the findings of fact are conflicting
6. When in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to
the admissions of both the appellant And appellees
7. When the findings are contrary to the trial court
8. When the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based
9. When the facts set forth in The petition as well as in the
petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by
respondent
10. When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record
11. And when the court of appeals manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts not disputed by parties, which, is
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
B. Question of Law
Administrative bodies would be allowed to resolve questions
of law in the exercise of their Quasi-judicial function as an
incident of their primary power of the regulation. However,
their determination on these matters is only tentative at best
and, whenever necessary may be reviewed in reverse by the
corpse in proper cases.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the question of the exist
when the doubt of controversy concerns the correct
application of law or jurisprudence to ascertain set of facts, or
when the issue does not call for an examinations of the
probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or
falsehood of facts being admitted. a question of facts exist
when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth of falsehood
of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole
evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witness, the
existence and relevancy of specific surroundings
circumstances as well as their relation to each other and the
whole and the probability of the situation. The decision of
legal question is an essentially judicial power that may not be
withheld or withdrawn from the courts by legislation as the
power is inherent in the judiciary.
as a rule, it is only the judicial tribunal that can interpret and
decide questions of law with finality.
given this power,courts nevertheless use it sparingly,
following the policy that interpretation by the administrative
authorities of the law they are supposed to enforce should be
received by the judiciary with respect. the presumption is that
constant exposure to the law they are supposed to carry out
will make the administrative authorities experts in such law,
ultimately, if not initially. propinquity with the law will, in the
long run, developing them as mastery of its provisions and
philosophy that will give them a proper insight as to its
meaning and the way it should be enforced. It is also possible
that they themselves had a hand in initiating a law and could
have even drafted it in it the first place.
As the Supreme Court put in asturias sugar central
incorporation versus commissioner of customs
In applying the doctrine or principle of respect for
administrative or practical construction, the courts often
referred to several factors which may be regarded as basis of
the principle, as factors leading the courts to give the principle
controlling weight In particular instances, or as independent
tools in themselves. these factors are the respect due to the
governmental agencies charge with administration, their
competence, expertness, experience, and informed judgment
in the fact that they frequently are the drafters of the law they
interpret, that the agency is the one on which the legislature
must rely to advise it as to the practical working out of the
statute, in practical application of the statute, presents the
agency with unique opportunity and experience for
discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or improvements in the
statute.
it should be remembered, though, That when the courts
decide to review administrative decisions on legal questions,
they are not subject to the same inhibitions that fetter them
when going over decisions by these same authorities on
factual questions. Factual questions are basically for the
administrative officials to resolve, but legal question
ultimately for the courts to determine. And in deciding legal
questions, courts are on firmer ground, so to speak, scenes
Judges have better preparation for this function, as compared
to administrative officials, who may not even be lawyers at
all. for this reason, courts may and will, with more freedom,
no administrative interpretations of law and substitute their
own reading of the statute under consideration if they believe
it has not been correctly applied. when an administrative
agency rendered on opinions or issues a statement of policy, it
merely Interprets a pre-existing law and the administrative
interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally
determine what the law means.
Thus, to illustrate, the Supreme Court reversed the national
telecommunication Commission when it assumed the right 2
award damages in a breach off contract case between do
telephone companies, holding that it had misinterpreted its
own charter.
The Supreme Court likewise rejected the exercise by the
presidential anti dollar salting task force of Quasi judicial
powers, as it's organic up, presidential decree number 1936,
did not confer such power upon it.
In the case of De Jesus v. People, The Supreme Court
reversed the decision by the Tanodbayan That it had
jurisdiction to initiate prosecution before the Sandiganbayan
of an election registrar for alleged irregularities in the listing
of voters. The Supreme Court held as erroneous A ruling by
the Civil Service Commission that a person was disqualified
from public office because of his former conviction for
jaywalking and violation of an ordinance prohibiting a
Cochero From sitting inside the Calesa, Declaring that these
offenses Were re not criminal per se.
In the case of Placer v. Villanueva, The Supreme Court
likewise rejected the position taken by the fiscals that they had
the power to determine probable cause under Presidential
Decree 911, holding that the final determination of this matter
lay in the discretion of the judge under the provisions of the
rules of court and the constitution.
All this is in consonance with the dictum of the supreme court
in Oceanic Bic Division v. Romero:
“A voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a
quasi judicial capacity. There is no reason why her decisions
involving interpretation of law should be beyond this Court’s
reviews. Administrative officials are presumed to act in
accordance with law and yet we do not hesitate to pass upon
their work where a question of law is involved or where a
showing of abuse of authority or discretion in their official
acts is properly raised in a petition for certiorari”
The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should be
given more weight than the interpretation by the agency of the
law it is merely tasked to administer.