Cj Admin Reviewer.pdf

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (DEAN CARLOTA) I.

Historical and Constitutional Considerations

a.

Factors Responsible for the Emergence of Administrative Agencies  According to Stone: (1) Lack of time (2) Lack of expertise (3) Lack of organizational aptitude for continuing regulation/supervision of the three organs to attend to growing concerns of modern, complex societies  According to Pangasinan v. Public Service Commission (J. Laurel): (1) Growing complexity of modern life (2) Multiplication of subjects of government regulation (3) Increased difficulty in administering laws

b. The Doctrine of Separation of Powers and the Constitutional Position of Administrative Agencies  Doctrine of Separation of Powers – refers to the constitutional demarcation of the fundamental powers of the government. Art. VI, Sec. 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 to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. Art. VII, Sec. 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. Art. VIII, Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. o Angara v Electoral Commission (J. Laurel): “[The principle of separation of powers] means that the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the government. To the legislative branch of government, through Congress,

c.

belongs the power to make laws; to the executive branch of government, through the President, belongs the power to enforce laws; and to the judicial branch of government, through the Court, belongs the power to interpret laws.” o Purpose: “The principle of separation of powers and its concepts of autonomy and independence stem from the notion that the powers of government must be divided to avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch; the division, it is hoped, would avoid any single branch from lording its power over the other branches or the citizenry. To achieve this purpose, the divided power must be wielded by co-equal branches of government that are equally capable of independent action in exercising their respective mandates. Lack of independence would result in the inability of one branch of government to check the arbitrary or self-interest assertions of another or others.” o The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.  Rise of Administrative Agencies o Stone: The trichotomy can no longer take care of the problems because society has become too complex thereby preventing the 3 branches from responding to the problems effectively  Hence, creation of ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES o Administrative agencies became the catch basin for the residual powers of the 3 branches; they perform vital tasks to make the doctrine viable. Definition of Terms

1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT  

II. a.

Administrative law: the law concerning the powers and procedures of administrative agencies, including, specially, judicial review of administrative action (Kenneth Davis) Administrative agency: any governmental authority, other than a court or a legislative body, which affects private rights through rule making or adjudication. Control of Administrative Action

Administrative Agencies and the Executive Power of the President Art. VII, 17: The President shall have control over all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. 



Executive Power – the power to enforce and administer laws o Control – the power to alter, modify, or overturn judgments of subordinates; inherent in the Executive - It includes the power to lay down the rules in the performance or accomplishment of an act, and in case of non-compliance, the power to order the act undone or redone or to decide to do it themselves (Drilon v Lim) - Limited only to executive departments, bureaus and offices  Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency – department secretaries are alter egos or assistants of the President and their acts are presumed to be those of the latter unless disapproved or reprobated by him o Supervision – overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties; ensure that the laws are faithfully executed  Does not include the power to law down the rules, nor the discretion to modify or replace them Q: Does the President exercise control over all administrative agencies? A: It depends on whether the enabling statute has given the President the power to review its judgments.

Under Art. VII, Sec. 17, the President has control over executive departments, bureaus, and offices, which are necessarily administrative agencies under the executive branch. The exception to this power of control administrative agencies is when the agency is created by law. The enabling statute must be first reviewed whether the President is given such power. If the law is silent, then the power of control cannot be presumed and the President would only have the power of supervision pursuant to the faithful execution clause. Moreover, constitutional agencies, are not subject to the President’s control because they are independent constitutional creations. b. Congressional Oversight Power  Congressional oversight power – power which embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted; it is intrinsic in the grant of legislative power and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government (Macalintal v. COMELEC, J. Puno’s dissent) o Purpose  To monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives  To determine whether agencies are properly administered  To eliminate executive waste and dishonesty  To prevent usurpation of legislative authority  To assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest o Categories (1) Scrutiny – determine economy and efficiency of administrative operations through requests for information and reports and giving recommendations and passing resolutions for the agency’s consideration; implies lesser intensity and continuity of attention to administrative operations; based primarily on power of appropriation by Congress e.g. budget hearings, question hour, power of confirmation (2) Investigation – more intense digging of facts; inquiries in aid of legislation: scope of inquiry is as penetrating and far-

2

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT reaching as the powers to enact and appropriate under the Constitution o 3 limitations in exercise of this power (i) It must be in aid of its legislative functions (ii) It must be conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure (iii) Persons appearing therein are afforded their constitutional rigths (3) Supervision – continuing and informed awareness on the part of a congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area (monitors exercise of delegated law-making authority, retaining part of that authority) e.g. legislative veto (requiring President or agency to present proposed regulations which have the force of law to Congress, which retains right to approve or disapprove) c. 



Legislative and Judicial Control of Administrative Decision Making Legislative Control o Legislative Powers over Admin. Agencies (1) Creation – Congress can create, divide, merge, modify or even abolish agencies (BUT abolition to be used sparingly because admin. agencies are needed) (2) Appropriation – Congress has budgetary power and power to withhold funds (BUT withholding funds might be to detriment of the public) (3) Investigation – Congress has power to investigate matters in aid of legislation (BUT it is limited and not encompassing; sporadic) o Non-delegation doctrine (see discussion infra) o Prescription of minimum procedural requirements – Congress to provide minimum procedural guidelines and general principles to be observed by all agencies in the performance of their rule making and adjudicative functions Judicial Review of Administrative Decision Making o Purpose is to keep the administrative agencies within its jurisdiction (intra vires) and to protect the substantial rights of the parties to due process of law

o

Judicial review is only allowed on questions of law and jurisdiction, but not on questions of fact and policy. Courts defer to the expertise and experience of agencies in their areas of specialization.  Substantial Evidence Rule – Findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, is binding upon the reviewing courts, unless otherwise provided by law.  Substantial Evidence – such level of evidence which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, even if equally reasonable minds opine otherwise.

d. The Office of the Ombudsman  Directly created by the 1987 Constitution as an independent office  Powers (which does not require pending action – BIR v Ombudsman) o Investigatory  any act or omission which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient; encompasses all misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance committed during their tenure, whether or not connected with official functions o Prosecutorial  Prosecute in its own initiative or from a complaint o Public Assistance Functions o Authority to inquire and obtain information  Characteristics o Political independence  Fuentes v Office of Ombudsman: The Ombudsman may not initiate a criminal or administrative complaint against a judge. The Ombudsman must indorse the case to the SC for appropriate action o Accessibility and Expedition o Investigatory Power  Lastimosa v Vasquez: Power to investigate and prosecute include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or connected with, or arise from, the performance of his

3

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT

o

III. a.

official duty. It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official.  Office of the Ombudsman v Enoc: The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. The Ombudsman as powers to prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the regular courts  Ledesma v CA; Estarija v Ranada: The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely advisory or recommendatory but are binding and mandatory. The Ombudsman has the authority to determine the administrative liability of public official or employee, and direct and compel the head of the office or agency to implement the penalty imposed, even dismissal from government service. Absence of Revisory Jurisdiction (cannot act as reviewing court of admin. agencies)  MWSS v Vasquez: The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested especially when the matter involves basically technical matters coming under the special technical knowledge and training of the agency or officer. Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies

Legislative Function i. Non-delegation doctrine o Potestes delegate non delegare potest, “what has been delegated cannot further be delegated) o The Congress cannot further delegate the power delegated to it by the people. A delegated power must be discharged directly by the delegate and not through the delegate’s agent o In the context of administrative agencies:

 

GENERAL RULE: Lawmaking powers (which was delegated by the people to Congress) cannot be delegated EXCEPTION: Delegation to administrative agencies: Principle of subordinate legislation - administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in" the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide  While the making of laws is a non-delegable power that pertains exclusively to Congress, nevertheless, the latter may constitutionally delegate the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason that the legislature finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect (People v Rosenthal; Pangasinan Transportation v Public Service Commission)  There is a distinction between the delegation of power to make law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its exection, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law (Compania General v Board of PUC; US v Tang Ho; Panama Refining Co. v Ryan)  Requisites of a valid delegation (Pelaez v Auditor General) (1) The law must be complete in itself; it must set forth the policy to be executed (completeness test) (2) The law must fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable, to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.  The standard may be:  Express;  Implied; [Edu v Ericta]] or

4

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT 





Embodied in other statutes on the same matter and not necessarily in the same law being challenged. [Chiongbian v Orbos]  A standard is sufficient if it—  Defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it; and  Indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. [Santiago v COMELEC; ABAKADA Guro List v Ermita] Other powers that can be delegated under the Constitution (People v Vera)  Delegation of emergency powers to the President  Delegation of tariff powers to the President (i.e. fix tariffs, import and export quotas, tonnage, and wharfage fees)  Delegation to the people at large (i.e. initiative and referendum)  Delegation to local authorities What cannot be delegated  Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v Auditor General)  NOTE: Merging of administrative regions is an administrative matter  Defining a crime (US v Ang Tang Ho; People v Maceren)

ii. Permissible delegation 1) Ascertainment of fact o Lovina v Moreno: A statute may give to non-judicial officers the power to declare the existence of facts which call into operation its provisions and may grant them and their subordinate officers the power to ascertain and determine appropriate facts as a basis of procedure in the enforcement of laws.

2) Filling in of details o Alegre v Collector of Customs: A statute which leaves to the Executive the power to fill in the technical details in view of the latter’s expertise is a recognized delegation of legislative power. 3) Administrative rulemaking Book VII, Administrative Procedure, Administrative Code of 1987 Sec. 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. a.

Limits of rulemaking power  Must be authorized by law. [Olsen v Aldanese]  Must not amend, restrict, diminish, supplant or modify the law or must not be inconsistent with the law. [GMCR v Bell Telecom; Syman v Jacinto]  Effect if otherwise: Action of the administrative agency to be set aside if there is an error of law, grave abuse or lack of jurisdiction clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of the law. [Land Bank v CA]  Must not define a criminal act. [People v Maceren]  Must be germane to the purpose of the law which it was meant to implement; power to promulgate rules may be legitimately exercised only for carrying the provisions of the law into effect. [Toledo v CSC]  If there is discrepancy between the basic law and an administrative rule, the basic law prevails. [Maxima Realty v Parkway Real Estate; China Banking v Member of Board of Trustees of HMDF]

5

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT   

May not unilaterally impose a new legislative policy, requiring the adjustment of various other contending policies. [Ople v Torres] May not dismantle a regulatory system that was set up by law. (Ass’n of Phil. Coconut Desiccators v PHILCOA) May not delegate, to a mere constituent unit (e.g. Bureau of Corrections), the rulemaking authority legislatively vested in the head of an executive department (e.g. DoJ). [Echegaray v Secretary of Justice]

b. Publication and effectivity Book VII, Administrative Procedure, Administrative Code of 1987 Sec. 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. Sec. 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.

Sec. 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. xxxxx Sec. 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. 

TWO REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFECTIVITY (1) Publication o Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided (Civil Code, Art. 2)  GENERAL RULE: Publication is indispensable in every case; publication requirements extend to: a) PDs and EOs promulgated by the President in the exercise of delegated legislative powers b) Administrative Rules and Regulations if their purpose is to implement existing laws pursuant to a valid delegation c) Charters of cities d) Circulars issued by the Monetary Board if they are meant not to merely interpret but to fill the details of the Central Bank Act

6

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT EXCEPTION: Publication requirement not needed in: a) Interpretive rules b) Internal regulations c) LOIs issued by administrative superiors to their subordinates o “unless otherwise provided by law” – refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself; legislature, in its discretion, may provide that the usual 15-day period be shortened or extended (Tanada v Tuvera) (2) Filing with the ONAR o “Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. x x x 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…”  GENERAL RULE: Every agency shall file with the ONAR every rule adopted by it EXCEPTION: Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the Administrative agency and the public, need not be filed with the UP Law Center. Only those of general and permanent character are to be filed (Board of Trustees of GISIS v Velasco)  NOTE: The fact that the rules were filed with the UP Law Center is of no moment. There is nothing in the Administrative Code which implies that the filing of the rules with UP Law Center is the operative act that gives



c.

the rules force and effect (RP v Express Telecom) NOTE: Non-compliance with the 2 mandatory requirements of (1) Publication and (2) Filing with the ONAR would not give effectivity to the administrative issuance (Republic v Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.)

Penal regulations Book VII, Sec. 6. Omission of Some Rules.— xxxx (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.  GENERAL RULE: Rules can neither define crimes nor provide penal sanctions (People v Maceren)  EXCEPTION: (1) If the agency is given the rule-making authority (2) Law itself provides that the act is criminal o If a rule is penal in character, the rule must be published before it takes effect. The people must be officially and specifically informed of the contents and penalties (People v Que Po Lay)

d. Interpretative rules  Interpretative Rules – the agency’s construction, interpretation, or opinion of a rule it is implementing. It presupposes that the rule is not clear and needs interpretation (Dean Carlota)  Administrative interpretations are appropriate aids toward eliminating construction and uncertainty in doubtful cases. When laws are susceptible of two or more interpretations, the administrative agency should make known its official position.  General Requirements of Interpretive Rules

7

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT



(1) Must have been issued on authority of law (2) Must be within the scope and purview of law (3) Must be reasonable Administrative interpretation at best merely advisory; it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. [Victorias v Social Security Commission]  Action of the administrative agency will be set aside if there was error of law, or abuse of power, or lack of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the legislative enactment. [Peralta v CSC]  Interpretative rules may be found erroneous by the successor of the promulgating administrative official. A vested right cannot spring from a wrong construction of law [Hilado v Collector]. Such wrong interpretation cannot place the Government in estoppel to correct or overrule the same. [Phil. Bank of Communications v CIR]

Legislative Rules promulgated pursuant to its quasi-legislative / rule-making functions. create a new law, a new policy, with the force and effect of law. need publication. So long as the court finds that the legislative rules are within the power of the administrative agency to pass, as seen in the primary law, then the rules bind the court. The court cannot question the wisdom or correctness of the policy contained in the rules.

Interpretative Rules passed pursuant to its quasijudicial capacity. merely clarify the meaning of a pre-existing law by inferring its implications. need not be published. Merely advisory and not binding upon the courts; The court may review their correctness of the interpretation of the law given by the administrative body, and substitute its own view of what is correct to the administrative body. If it is

not within the scope of the administrative agency, court can only invalidate the same but not substitute its decision or interpretation or give its own set of rules. Due process involves whether Due process means that the the parties were afforded the body observed the proper opportunity to be notified and procedure in passing rules. heard before the issuance of the ruling. 4) Fixing of rates, wages, prices Book VII, Sec. 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. o Two requirements for Rate-Fixing (1) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation for at least 2 weeks (2) Public hearing o An administrative agency cannot delegate its power to set rates unless it is specifically provided in a law. When the administrative agency is given the power to set rates, a company may only propose, and this proposal is subject to the approval of said agency (Panay Autobus v Philippine Railway Co.).  Rate-fixing is a delicate government function that requires sound discretion with the settled goal of arriving at a just and reasonable rate acceptable to both the public utility and the public (KMU Labor Center v Garcia

8

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT o

Philcomsat v Alcuaz and Vigan Electric Co. v PSC: While ratefixing is generally a quasi-legislative function, it can also be a quasi-judicial function: Basis As to procedural standards

Quasi-legislative The procedure is that normally observed in the making of rules.

As to time

Rule-making is prospective in character, for it only governs future acts.

As to application

Legislative rules are of general application

Quasi-judicial The procedure must observe the requirements of due process in the 7 cardinal rules. Adjudication is retrospective in character, for it investigates acts already done and then applies the law on the facts. Adjudicative rulings apply only to parties

5) Licensing function Book VII, Sec. 17. Licensing Procedure.— (1) When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice and hearing, the provisions concerning contested cases shall apply insofar as practicable. (2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and regulations or when public security, health, or safety require otherwise, no license may be withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without notice and hearing. Book VII, Sec. 18. Non-expiration of License. – Where the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license shall not expire until the application shall have been finally determined by the agency.

o

o

Notice and hearing in licensing is only required if it is a contested case. Otherwise, it can be dispensed with (e.g. driver’s license). (Book VII, Sec. 11) No expiry date does not mean the license is perpetual. A license permit is a special privilege, a permission or authority to do what is within its terms. It is not vested, permanent or absolute, but is always revocable. [Gonzalo Sy Trading v Central Bank]

b. Judicial Function i. Power to issue subpoena, cite in contempt Sec. 13, 1987 Admin Code. 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 or 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. o

Subpoena Power  Power to:  Require attendance of witnesses (subpoena ad testificandum)  Require production of books, papers, documents, and other pertinent data (subpoena duces tecum)  When issued:  Upon request of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance  All agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to issue subpoena, even if the administrative agency’s charter is silent as to such power. If it cannot subpoena, it cannot function as a quasi-judicial agency.  TEST FOR THE VALIDITY ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENA (Evangelista v Jarencio) (1) It is within the authority of the agency (must be granted by law)

9

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT

o

(2) The demand is not too indefinite (not a fishing expedition) (3) The information is reasonably relevant Contempt Power  GENERAL RULE: Agencies cannot cite a person in contempt and must invoke the aid of the RTC within whose jurisdiction the contested case falls (because power to cite contempt is inherently judicial)  EXCEPTION: Unless otherwise provided by law  Requirements: (1) An enabling statute expressly gives the agency the power to cite for contempt (2) The agency shall exercise such power in relation to its quasi-judicial, not ministerial function (Guevarra v COMELEC)  Two instances where power of contempt is illegal: (1) There was no grant of power (2) There was such a grant of power but it was improperly exercised NOTE: The agency’s power to hold any person in contempt for refusal to comply cannot extend to an RTC Judge and to a party to a controversy who took necessary steps to avail himself of a judicial remedy (Tolentino v Inciong)

ii. Warrants of arrest, administrative searches o Warrants of arrest  GENERAL RULE: It is only judges, after determination of probable cause, who can issue (search warrants or) warrants of arrest (Salazar v Achacoso; Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2)  NOTE: The Constitution does not distinguish between warrants in a criminal case and administrative warrants in administrative proceedings (Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board)  EXCEPTION: The President or Immigration authorities can issue arrest warrants if there is a final order of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens



o

Two ways of deporting (Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board) (1) Commission of Immigration by virtue of the Immigration Law (2) President pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code (no grounds for deportation needed, has sole discretion under international law)  NOTE: The warrants issued by the President or the Immigration authorities is valid because its purpose is not to determine the existence of probable cause, but to execute a final order of deportation (Board of Commissioners v De la Rosa) Administrative searches  Warrantless administrative searches are significant intrusions upon interests protected by the 4th Amendment (right to privacy), and will be subjected to scrutiny by the Court, particularly as to reasonableness and whether there is emergency or not. (Camara v Municipal Court)  This doctrine likewise applies to commercial establishments. Businessman, like occupant of a residence, has a constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property (See v Seattle)  Limitations on administrative subpoenas of corporate books and documents: (1) Limited in scope. (2) Relevant in purpose. (3) Specific directives so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome. (4) Subpoena must designate the needed documents. (5) Subpoena may not be made and enforced in the field.

10

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT (6) Subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of reasonableness of demand prior to suffering penalties for refusal to comply.

ix. Maintain monetary stability, promote rising level of production and real income (People v Joliffe) IV.

iii. Imposition of fines and penalties o Agencies have the power to impose fines and penalties o TEST FOR VALID IMPOSITION (Ocean Steam Navigation v Stranahan) (1) Subject matter must be within the authority of Congress to legislate (2) Penalty to be imposed must be administrative or civil in character (3) Agency expressly authorized to impose penalty o NOTE: A fine in the nature of a civil penalty that is exacted not so much as a penalty for the violation of administrative rules but for the need to stress desistance from wanton disregard of existing rules, regulations, or requirements, is an administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecution. [Civil Aeronautics Board v Phil. Airlines] c.

Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards i. Interest of law and order (Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro) ii. Public interest (People v Rosenthal and Osmena) iii. Justice, equity and substantial merits of the case (International Hardwood and Veneer Co. v Pangil Federation) iv. What is moral, educational or amusing – evaluated from the sense and experience of men (Mutual Film Corp. v Industrial Commission) v. What is sacrilegious – not a valid standard; it is not the business of government to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine (Burstyn v Wilson) vi. Adequate and sufficient instruction (PACU v Secretary) vii. Reasonableness as an implied standard in every law (Wisconsin Inspenction Bureau v Whitman) viii. To promote simplicity, economy, or efficiency (Cervantes v Auditor General)

a.

Administrative Procedure In Rule Making (See discussion, supra)

b. In Price, Wage or Rate fixing (See discussion, supra) c.

In Licensing (See discussion, supra)

d. In Adjudication of Cases i. Rules of Procedure Book VII, Sec. 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. Sec. 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 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. Sec. 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.

11

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT 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. 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. Sec. 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 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. Sec. 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency shall become final and executory 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. Due Process

1) Cardinal Primary Rights Ang Tibay v Court of Industrial Relations: The 7 cardinal rights are: (1) Right to a hearing.  Includes the right of a part to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (3) Decision must be supported by evidence. (4) Evidence must be substantial; i.e. more than a mere scintilla, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable would opine otherwise. (5) Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.  Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. (6) Judge must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts  Must not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. (7) Decision rendered in such a manner as to let the parties know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered. 2) Notice and Hearing 3) Form and Promulgation of Judgment iii. Jurisdiction iv. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings arising from the same facts v. Rules of Evidence

12

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT

V.

Judicial Review of Administrative Action 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 (San Miguel Corp. v. SOLE, 1975). The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties affected by its decisions. Framework of analysis: 1) Availability of judicial review 2) Scope or extent of judicial review (question of law, fact, discretion, policy) 3) Mode of judicial review (certiorari, review on certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, declaratory relief, habeas corpus, preliminary injunction) a.

Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative Decisions Rule: Principle of non quieta movere; Public interest requires that proceedings already terminated should not be altered at every step. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations.  If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. A court may not substitute its own construction for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 1984).  The Office of the President may not, by a “Win-Win Resolution” modify a decision by the DAR that has

already become final and executory. The orderly administration of justice requires that judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations (Fortich v. Corona,1998). Exceptions:  There are limits to the exercise of administrative discretion. Administrative proceedings may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing that 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 (Manuel v. Villena, 1971). *Note: The enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies reviewable by the CA under Rule 43 is not exclusive. Thus, decisions of quasi-judicial agencies like the BSP Monetary Board may be appealed to the CA via Rule 43 (UCPB v. E. Guanzon, 2009). b. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Purpose: to enable the agency to correct its own errors; out of comity, convenience, or expedient courtesy Applicability: The principle of administrative agencies applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. Rule: Where the law has delineated the procedure by which administrative appeal/remedy could be effected, the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated. Exceptions:

13

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT 1. 2.

Violation of due process Purely legal question that will ultimately have to be decided by courts of justice Where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction Estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant Irreparable injury Qualified political agency Requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable Amounts to a nullification of a claim Subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings No plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Urgency Law is voluntary or permissive Strong public interest involved Quo warranto proceeding Claim involved is small No administrative review provided by law Non-exhaustion rendered moot

agency should be taken first to that agency, even if the case in theory could be taken into court (Texas & Pac. Railway Co. v. Abilene, 1907: on uniform “just and reasonable” rates).

Effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies: Failure to observe the doctrine of administrative remedies does not affect the court’s jurisdiction. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case and try it (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 1996).

Effect on the action commenced in the regular court: The application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not call for the dismissal of the case in the RTC. It need only be suspended until after the matters within the agency’s competence are threshed out and determined (Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 1990).

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

c.

Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary Resort Rule: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires that a dispute that fits within the jurisdiction of an administrative

Purpose: Serves as a guide to the judge as to when he should yield his concurrent jurisdiction, ie when the issue requires the expertise of the agency, because where there is concurrent jurisdiction, the court which takes cognizance of the case first assumes jurisdiction. Applicability: The doctrine applies where claim is originally cognizable in the courts but have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body Requisites: 1. There must be a concurrence of jurisdiction between the regular court and the administrative agency. 2. The question or issue involved requires the technical expertise of the agency. 3. The legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in rulings. 4. The administrative agency is performing a quasijudicial function.

d. Standing to Challenge Rule: Locus standi is defined as “the right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question”. It requires that the party bringing a case before the court has a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the

14

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT governmental act that is being challenged. The question is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.

1. 2.

VI. Tests (Association of Data Processing Service Organization v. Camp, 1970): 1. Zone of interests test: requires that the interest sought to be protected be the sort of interest the statute was designed to protect. 2. Injury-in-fact test: Whether the plaintiff alleged that the challenged action had caused or is likely to cause him injury in fact, economic, or otherwise. It must not be speculative or merely conjectural. For a taxpayer’s suit, there must be an allegation of illegal disbursement of public funds. Dean Carlota (dissenting to Kilosbayan v. Morato, 1995): For as long as petitioner is challenging the validity of an official government action, even if it does not involve a specific constitutional issue, one is entitled to invoke the rules on standing, particularly the injury-in-fact test. e.

Ripeness Applicability: rule-making, policy-making and quasilegislative functions of the agency Purpose (Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 1967): 1) To prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and 2) To protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. Test (Plaintiff must satisfy both):

Fitness test: case is ripe for judicial review as where legal issues are involved; AND Hardship test: consider the hardship to the parties by withholding court consideration, ie when petitioner is exposed to sanctions for non-compliance.

Modes of Judicial Review a.

Certiorari Definition: A writ emanating from a superior court directed against an inferior court, tribunal or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions Nature and Purpose: A prerogative writ not demandable as a matter of right to set aside or nullify orders of proceedings assumed under error of jurisdiction. The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The reason is that when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment (Purefoods Corporation v. NLRC, 1989). Ground: Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction: whimsical, capricious, arbitrary, despotic attitude. Requisites: 1. There must be a controversy 2. Respondent is exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions 3. Respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction

15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT 4.

There must be no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law

Ever since appeals from the NLRC to the SC were eliminated, the legislative intentment was that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of NLRC decisions. Consequently, all such petitions must be initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the proper forum (St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 1998). b. Prohibition

immediate review by should be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin deportation proceedings. C) Finally, where the evidence of citizenship or alienage is not conclusive in either case, recourse to the courts is preferable (Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board, 1955). c.

Mandamus Definition: Writ issued in the name of the State to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.

Definition: Writ issued by superior court and directed against an inferior court, board, officer, or other person whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions for the purpose of preventing the latter from usurping jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested.

Nature and Purpose: Affirmative if performance of a legally mandated duty is ordered; Negative if ordered to desist from excluding another from a right or office. The purpose is to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty.

Nature and Purpose: Preventive remedy to put a stop to proceedings.

Requisites: 1. There must be a clear and convincing legal right or duty 2. The act to be performed must be practical (within the powers of the respondent) 3. Respondent must be exercising a ministerial duty (not involving the exercise of discretion) 4. The duty or act to be performed must be existing 5. There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law

Requisites: 1. There must be a controversy 2. Respondent is exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions 3. Respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction 4. There must be no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law The legal basis for a petition for prohibition in deportation cases is the absence of the jurisdictional fact of alienage. A) Mere allegation of citizenship does not divest the Deportation Board of authority to hear the case. It has the power, in the first instance, to determine the respondent’s nationality. B) However, when the evidence submitted by respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to

Where a pension board or officer simply refuses to take any action whatever, the court will issue a mandamus to compel it or him to take action, but will not attempt to prescribe the action to be taken and thereby control the discretion or judgment of the board or officer (Palicarpio v. Phil. Veterans Board, 1956). Mandamus is employed to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. But mandamus does not lie to require

16

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct (Province of Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission, 1977). 

d. Declaratory Relief Applicability: Subject matter must be either a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order, or regulation or ordinance; and the issue must be with regard to the validity or construction of the subject matter



Purpose: To seek a declaration of rights, against the common law rule that no such declaration may be judicially adjudged unless a right has been violated and for the violation of which relief may granted. Requisites: 1. Subject matter is a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order, or regulation or ordinance 2. Actual justiciable controversy or ‘ripening seeds’ of one between persons whose interests are adverse. 3. No breach of documents in question 4. Doubtful as to the terms and validity of the document and require judicial construction 5. Issue is ripe for judicial determination, as where all administrative remedies have been exhausted. 6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding Inapplicable in:  Citizenship: Citizenship cannot be determined in a complaint for declaratory judgment or relief, for the subject matter of such proceeding does not involve a deed, will, contract, other written instrument, statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance. The petitioner should proceed to exercise her rights as a citizen and submit

e.

evidence and seek relief from the courts only if these are controverted by the administrative agency (Azajar v. Ardalles, 1955). Breach of contract or statute: The general purpose of a declaratory judgment is to provide for adjudication of the legal rights, duties, or status of respective parties. The action must be brought before there has been a breach of a contract or statute the construction of which is sought, else, it will result in multiplicity of suits (De Borja v. Villadolid, 1949). Tax collection cases: Declaratory relief is unavailable in cases involving collection of taxes. To allow a taxpayer to first secure a ruling as regards the validity of the tax before paying it would defeat the purpose of preventing delay in the collection of taxes to the prejudice of the Government and the public. Thus, the taxpayer’s remedy is to pay the tax and sue for its recovery within the period limited by law (National Dental Supply Co. v. Meer, 1951).

Habeas Corpus Definition: Writ directed to person detaining another commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf. Purpose: Not to determine the prisoner’s guilt or innocence but ascertain whether he is restrained of his liberty without due process of law The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality. The court has the power to order the release of

17

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT an alien who has been detained for an unreasonably long period of time after it has become apparent that although a warrant for his deportation has been issued, the same cannot be effectuated (Majoff v. Director of Prisons, 195!). f.

have to be suspended for jeopardizing the interests of the taxpayer (Collector v. Reyes, 1957). The CFI, as a court of general jurisdiction, has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive reliefs against incident to a Workmen’s Compensation case, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Worken’s Compensation Commission or SC on appeal (Nocnoc v. Vera, 1979).

Injunction as Provisional Remedy Definition: Judicial writ, process, or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a particular act

In cases of extreme urgency; where petitioner's right to the writ is clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience are strongly in his favor; where there appears to be a willful invasion of petitioner's right, the injury inflicted upon him being a continuing one; and where the effect of the mandatory injunction would not be to create a new relation between the parties but solely to re-establish a pre-existing relation between them recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the respondent, courts should not hesitate in granting the writ of prelim injunction (Lemi v. Valencia, 1963).

Nature and Purpose: An ancillary or preventive remedy where a court requires a person, party, inferior court or tribunal either to refrain (prohibitory) or to perform (mandatory) particular acts during the pendency of an action. The purpose is to preserve the status quo or to prevent future wrongs in order to preserve and protect certain or rights during the pendency of the action. Requisites: 1. There must be a verified application 2. The applicant must establish that he has a right to be protected, and the act against which the injunction is sought violates such right 3. The applicant must also establish that there is a need to restrain the commission or continuance of the acts complained of, and if not enjoined, would work injustice to him 4. A bond must be posted, unless otherwise exempted by the court 5. The threatened injury must be incapable of pecuniary estimation The requirement of the bond as a condition precedent to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction applies only in cases where the processes by which the collection sought to be made by means thereof are carried out in consonance with the law, and not when said processes are obviously in violation of the law to the extreme that they

VII.

Extent of Judicial Review a.

The Law-Fact Distinction – applicability of the Substantial Evidence Rule Findings of Fact v. Conclusions of Law. But there may be mixed questions of fact and law: ie “Are the rates reasonable?” Where the question is whether from the evidence submitted by the parties it could fairly be concluded that a conclusion of law had been properly drawn, the case is reviewable by the courts (Dauan v. Sec of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1967). Legal implications—such as right to compensation, succession, the legal status of the wife—are so important that courts should not so easily be carried to the conclusion that the man is dead. Non-controversion in compensation

18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT cases, as in the case of pleadings in ordinary civil cases, simply means admission of facts, not conclusions of law (Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. Pepito, 1966).

discretion is gravely abused, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, then the courts will review or intervene. Erroneous application of the significance of competing facts does not mean that it has abused its discretion. Well established is the rule that the SC will not substitute its judgment for that of the PSC, and the statute explicitly provides that its orders should be reversed only if it is 1) without reasonable support in evidence, 2) rendered against law, or 3) issued without jurisdiction (Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. PSC, 1957).

b. Questions of Law – Even if the statute is silent as to the availability of judicial review, it is available, because the Judiciary is the final interpreter of the law. While findings of fact by the Director of Lands are conclusive, his decision as regards a question of law (on the issue of citizenship) is in no sense conclusive upon the courts. In other words, any action of the Director of Lands which is based upon a misconstruction of the law can be corrected by the courts (Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion, 1934). c.

NTC’s findings as to the grant or denial of applications should be given weight, considering that it si the government agency charged with passing upon applications for certificates of public convenience and necessity. It is authorized to determine what the specific operating and technical requirements of “public convenience and necessity” are in the field of telecommunications. Courts should not intervene in that administrative process, save upon a very clear showing of serious violation of law or of fraud, personal malice or wanton oppression (PLDT v. NTC, 1995).

Questions of Fact Substantial Evidence Rule: Findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, is binding upon the reviewing courts, unless otherwise provided by law (Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 1951). EO 297, Book VII, Sec. 25 (7): Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law. Note: Legal Toolkit: Question substantiality of the evidence so it becomes a legal question that will force the courts to examine the record. Exception: GADALEJ

d. Questions of Discretion – Attitude of the reviewing court is restraint if what is involved is the exercise of discretion granted to that administrative agency. However, if this

e.

VIII.

Questions of Policy – Generally non-judicial business, but the courts may be constrained to consider policy questioned inextricably linked with questions of law (polycentric).

Enforcement of Agency Action a.

Res Judicata; Finality of Judgment A judicial doctrine intended to put an end to litigation: “A matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment”

19

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT Bar by Prior Judgment: Claim judgment – first judgment is a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action

b. Writ of Execution; Mandamus 

Requisites: 1. The former judgment must be final 2. Rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties 3. It must be a judgment on the merits 4. There must be, between the 1st and 2nd actions: a) identity of parties, b) identity of subject matter, c) identity of cause of action

Requisites: 1. The writ of execution must be valid, must conform strictly to the decision or judgment which gives it life 2. It cannot vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.

While it is true that this Court has declared that the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial and quasijudicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of administrative powers, SC has also limited the latter to proceedings purely administrative in nature. Therefore, when the administrative proceedings take on an adversary character, the doctrine of res judicata certainly applies (Heirs of Maximo Derla v. Heirs of Catalina Derla vda. De Hipolito, 2011).

The power to enforce awards under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is expressly vesred in the Commission or duly deputized officials of the DOLE. Execution is a necessary step in the enforcement of the award, and while it is procedural in nature and therefore essentially falls within the rule-making power of the SC, it may be legislated upon by Congress under its constitutional authority to repeal, alter or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure (Apolega v. Hizon, 1968).

Conclusiveness of Judgment: Issue preclusion – first judgment precludes the re-litigation of a particular fact or issue in another action between the same parties on a different cause of action. This rule does not apply to issues of law or where the issues in the 2 cases are not identical. Requisites: 1. The issues must be identical 2. The adjudication of an issue in the 1st case is not conclusively of an entirely different and distinct issue arising in the 2nd 3. It must clearly and positively appear, either from the record itself or by the aid of competent extrinsic evidence that the precise point or question in issue in the 2nd suit was involved and decided in the 1st suit

Writ of Execution: The grant to a tribunal or agency of adjudicatory power, or the authority to hear and adjudge cases, should normally and logically be deemed to include the grant of authority to enforce or execute the judgments it thus renders, unless the law otherwise provides (GSIS v. CSC, 1991).



Mandamus: A final and executory award entitles petitioner to its enforcement according to its letter. It is not susceptible to any change or alteration by the officer charged by its implementation, as the latter’s duty on the matter constitutes only a ministerial act compellable by mandamus where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Vda. De Corpuz v. The Commanding General, Phil. Army, 1978).

20

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT



Contempt – by the agency if expressly granted the power to cite in contempt; and through the courts in the absence of such authority



Action for damages under Article 27, Civil Code: “Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.”

21