Class-notes-qj-power (1).pdf

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Lecturer: Atty. Sahara Alia J. Silongan







Class: LLB 2B Thursdays, 6:30-8:30 P.M.



Quasi-Judicial Power The QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER is 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. This involves: 1. the discretion of officers or administrative tribunal in gathering and ascertaining evidence 2. ascertain the existence of facts on the basis of the evidence gathered 3. application of the law itself on the facts so gathered. Cases: Cariño v. CHR (Dec.2, 1991) Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. International Communications Corp. (July 23, 2004) PCGG v. Judge Peña (April 12, 1998)

The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power requires compliance with two conditions, to wit:

1. Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body. 2. Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.

JURISDICTION may be simply defined as the competence of an office or body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question. Case: Ilocos Sur Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC (February 1, 1995) v Assign cases: 1. Syquia v. Board of Power and Water Works (Nov. 29, 1976) 2. Boiser v. Court of Appeals (June 24, 1983) Rules of Procedure Where an administrative body is expressly granted the power of adjudication, it is deemed also vested with the implied power to prescribe the rules to be observed in the conduct of its proceedings. Rules of procedure of quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supre Court. Case: Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava (Feb. 16, 1959) The Rules of Court are suppletory to rules of procedure of quasi-judicial agencies. This means that any deficiency or absence of applicable provision in the rules of procedure of administrative agencies governing a given situation may, and must be, filled up by the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court. In deciding administrative questions, administrative bodies or officials generally enjoy wide discretion. Technical rules of procedure are not strictly enforced, and due process of law in the strict judicial sense is not indispensable. It is sufficient that the substantive due rpocess requirement of fairness and reasonableness be observed.

Forum Shopping

Forum shopping is the improper practice of going from one court to another in the hope of securing a favorable relief in one court which another court has denied or the filing of repetitious suits or proceedigns in different courts concerning substantially the same subject matter. There is also forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorabe opinion in another forum, other than appeal or certiorari. Sources: AGPALO. Administrative Law. 2005 ed.; CRUZ. Philippine Administrative Law. 2007 ed.

1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Lecturer: Atty. Sahara Alia J. Silongan







Class: LLB 2B Thursdays, 6:30-8:30 P.M.



The Subpoena Power

The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent in administrative bodies. It is settled that these bodies may summon witnesses and require the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and alwys only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate. Executive Order 292, Book 7, Chapter 3, Section 13 grants such power to agencies performing quasijudicial functions.

The Contempt Power

Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for contempt is essentially judicial and cannot be claimed as an inherent right by the administative body. To be validly exercised, it must be expressly conferred upon the body and additionally, must be used only in connection with its quasi-judicial as distinguished from its purely administrative or routinary functions. v Assign cases: 3. Guevara v. COMELEC (July 31, 1958) 4. Tolentino v. Inciong (July 25, 1979)

NOTICE AND HEARING The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-observance will as a rule invalidate the administrative proceedings. Case: CSC v. Lucas (January 21, 1999) Case: Lincoln Gerard, Inc. v. NLRC (July 23, 1990) Held: Equally without merit is the petitioner’s contention that it was denied due process of law because the decision dated October 10, 1987 was served upon its former counsel who did not inform it about the adverse decision. It has been a settled rule that when a party appears by counsel in an action in court or administrative body, all notices required to be given must be served to the counsel and not to the client, for the rule is that notice to the counsel is notice to the client. Records show that petitioner’s former counsel, Chuanico and Oebanda Law offices did not withdraw its appearance, hence, service of a copy of the decision on the law was valid. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard. Such opportunity to be heard may be after the rendition of a decision adverse to a party, as by his filing of a motion for reconsideration thereof or by appealing therefrom. The denial of the right to notice and hearing will render the administrative proceedings null and void for denial of due process. Exceptions: 1. urgency of immediate action 2. tentativeness of the administrative action (which does not preclude the enjoyment of the right at a later time without prejudice to the person affected) 3. the fact that the right had previously been offered but not claimed 4. summary abatement of a nuisance per se 5. preventive suspension of a public servant facing administrative charges Sources: AGPALO. Administrative Law. 2005 ed.; CRUZ. Philippine Administrative Law. 2007 ed.

2

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Lecturer: Atty. Sahara Alia J. Silongan







Class: LLB 2B Thursdays, 6:30-8:30 P.M.

6. padlocking of filthy restaurants or theatres showing obscene movies which are immediate threats to public health and decency 7. cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution 8. summary distraint and levy of the properties of a delinquent taxpayer 9. replacement of a temporary or acting appointee

Administrative Due Process

While administrative determinations of contested cases are by their nature judicial, there is no requirement for strict adherence to technical rules as are observed in truly judicial proceedings. Ang Tibay v. CIR (February 27, 1940) Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administrative proceedings -- (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be "substantial." It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered. Montemayor v. Bundalian (July 1, 2003) Basic principles in administrative investigations: 1. The burden is on the complainant to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. 2. In reviewing administrative decisions of the executive branch of the government, the findings of facts made therein are to be respected so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. 3. Administrative decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law. These principles negate the power of the reviewing court to re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence in an administrative case as if originally instituted therein, and do not authorize the court to receive additional evidence that was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned. It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the administrative question be impartial to ensure a fair decision. The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. Sources: AGPALO. Administrative Law. 2005 ed.; CRUZ. Philippine Administrative Law. 2007 ed.

3

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Lecturer: Atty. Sahara Alia J. Silongan







Class: LLB 2B Thursdays, 6:30-8:30 P.M.

Case: Zambales Chromite v. CA (Nov. 7, 1979) Held: In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. v Assign case: 5. Anzaldo v. Clave (December 15, 1982) 6. Singson v. NLRC, PAL (June 19, 1997) Pefianco v. Moral (January 19, 2000) Held: There is no law or rule which imposes a legal duty on petitioner to furnish respondent with a copy of the investigation report. He is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against her during the hearings of the investigation committee. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the courts of justice; and need not necessarily include the right to cross-examination. The requirement of notice and hearing does not connote full adversarial proceedings. Submission of position papers may be sufficient for as long as the parties thereto are given the opportunity to be heard. Case: UP Board of Regents v. CA (August 31, 1999) The elements of due process are well-established, viz: 1. There must be a court or a tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. 2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or property which is the subject of the proceedings. 3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard. 4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. v Assign cases: 7. Fabella v. CA (Nov. 28, 1997) 8. Alcala v. Villar (No. 18, 2003) 9. Cruz, Paitim v. CSC (Nov. 27, 2001) Right to Counsel v Assign case: 10. Lumiqued v. Exevea (Nov. 18, 1997)

Enforcement of Decisions

It is established that administrative agencies that have not been conferred the power to enforce their quasi-judicial decisions may invoke court action for the purpose. Under the Administrative Code, the agency shall decide each case within 30 days following its submission. A case is deemed submitted for decision after both parties shall have concluded presentation of their evidence or upon the filing of their respective memoranda, if required or if they so ask and the same is granted. The Administrative Code requires that “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.”

Sources: AGPALO. Administrative Law. 2005 ed.; CRUZ. Philippine Administrative Law. 2007 ed.

4

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Lecturer: Atty. Sahara Alia J. Silongan







Class: LLB 2B Thursdays, 6:30-8:30 P.M.

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. A decision of an administrative officer or agency, in the exercise of quasi-judicial power, becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated. Promulgation means the delivery of the decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication. It is the process by which a decision is pubished, officially announced, made known to the public or delivered to the clerk of court for filing, coupled with notice to the parties or their counsel.

Res Judicata

The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general judicial powers. Res judicata is not applicable: 1. Where the two cases do not place indetical causes of action and issues although the actions so filed are based on the same essential facts 2. Where the agency does not possess a quasi-judicial power v Assign case: 11. Montemayor v. Bundalian (July 1, 2003)

Sources: AGPALO. Administrative Law. 2005 ed.; CRUZ. Philippine Administrative Law. 2007 ed.

5