Final Admin 2007
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Final Admin 2007 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 27,562
- Pages: 58
152
ADM IN IST RATI VE LAW
law is silent as to the control which the President may exercise, the President can only supervise, i.e., to see to it that the
I.
Historical and Constitutional Considerations
laws are faithfully executed.
•
time, (2) expertise, and (3)
A. Development of Administrative Law as a
organizational aptitude for effective and
distinct field of public law
1.
The 3 branches of government lack (1)
continuing regulation of new developments in society [Stone]. Thus,
Factors Responsible for the Emergence of
there is a need for a body which would
Administrative Agencies
act as a “catchbasin,” otherwise the 3
a. Growing complexities of modern life;
branches would collapse. The
b. Multiplication of number of subjects
Administrative Agency supports the
needing government regulation; and
trichotomy of powers.
c. Increased difficulty of administering laws. [Laurel, J. in Pangasinan
A. Definition of Terms
Transportation v Public Service Commission (1940)]
2.
Doctrine of “Separation of Powers” and the
1. Administrative Law
•
with the doctrines and principles
constitutional position of Administrative
governing the powers and procedures of
Agencies
•
administrative agencies, especially
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers,
including judicial review of administrative
though not mentioned anywhere by such
action. [Prof. Kenneth Culp Davis]
name in the 1987 Constitution, can be
•
inferred from its provisions. The heart of
competence of administrative authorities
the government must be kept separate
and indicates to the individual remedies
from each other, each power being under the principal control of a branch of government. The legislative power is granted to the Congress, the executive power to the President, and the judicial power to the Judiciary.
Meaning: Branch of public law which fixes the organization and determines the
the doctrine is that the basic powers of
•
Meaning: Branch of public law dealing
for the violation of his rights. [Nachura] •
Kinds of Administrative Law:
a.
authorities.
b.
promulgated pursuant to the
exercises control over agencies and
purposes for which they were
offices which perform rule-making or
•
If the agency is created by Congress, consider the law that created it. If the
Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative authorities
The President as Chief Executive
adjudicatory functions.
Statutes setting up administrative
created.
c.
Determinations, decisions, and orders of such administrative authorities made in settlement of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
153
d.
controversies arising in their
administrative when it does not have
particular fields.
discretion to determine what the law shall
Body of doctrines and decisions
be but merely prescribes details for the
dealing with the creation, operation,
enforcement of the law.
•
and effect of determinations and
•
Any department, bureau, office,
regulations of such administrative
commission, authority or officer of the
authorities.
National Government authorized by law
Administration:
or executive order to make rules, issue
a.
licenses, grant rights or privileges, and
Meaning: Understood in 2 different
adjudicate cases; research institutions
senses:
with respect to licensing functions;
As a function: The execution, in
government corporations with respect to
non-judicial matters, of the law or
functions regulating private right,
will of the State as expressed by
privilege, occupation or business; and
competent authority.
officials in the exercise of disciplinary
As an organization: That group or
powers as provided by law. [Sec. 2, Book
aggregate of persons in whose hands
VII, Admin Code of 1987]
the reins of government are for the time being.
b.
Distinguished from government:
c.
Kinds:
3.
Internal: Legal side of public administration (e.g. matters
Powers of an Administrative Agency
a.
Quasi-legislative or rule-making power.
b.
Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power.
c.
Determinative powers [Nachura]
concerning personnel; fiscal and
•
Licensing.
planning activities).
•
Price/rate-fixing.
External: Deals with problems of
•
Implementing or executing.
government regulations (e.g. regulation of professions, industries or businesses). 2. Administrative Agency
•
4.
Types of Administrative Agencies a.
As to purpose:
1.
Government grant or gratuity, special privilege.
Meaning: Any governmental organ or
•
authority, other than a court or legislative
Admin., GSIS, SSS, PAO, etc.
body, which affects the rights of private parties, through rule-making and
2.
•
A body or agency is administrative where its function is primarily regulatory, even if it conducts hearings and determines controversies to carry out its regulatory
Carrying out the actual business of government.
adjudication. [Davis; Nachura]
•
Bureau of Lands, Phil. Veterans
BIR, Customs, Immigration, Land Registration Authority, etc.
3.
Service for public benefit. •
Philpost, PNR, MWSS, NFA, NHA, etc.
duty. On its rule-making authority, it is
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
154 4.
•
Regulation of businesses affected with public interest. •
XIV, Sec. 9]
Insurance Commission, LTFRB, NTC,
•
HLURB, etc.
5.
•
individuals.
6.
12]
2.
because of a strong social policy involved.
7. b.
GSIS, etc.
As to the organic law of creation: 1.
Legislative enactment / Congressional Statute (regulatory agency).
ECC, NLRC, SEC, DAR, COA, etc.
Government as private party. •
•
National Labor Relations Commission.
•
Social Security Commission.
•
Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
1987 Constitutional provision.
•
Civil Service Commission. [Art. IX-B]
•
Commission on Elections. [Art. IX-C]
•
Commission on Audit. [Art. IX-B]
•
Commission on Human Rights. [Art.
• •
• •
Philippine Patent Office.
•
Professional Regulation Commission.
XIII, Sec. 17]
•
Games and Amusement Board.
Commission on Appointments. [Art.
•
Board of Energy.
VI, Sec. 18]
•
Insurance Commission.
•
Dangerous Drugs Board.
Senate Electoral Tribunal. [Art. VI,
Judicial and Bar Council. [Art. VIII, Sec. 8]
•
3.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. [Art. VI, Sec. 17]
•
c.
As to hierarchy: 1.
Office of the President and Cabinet.
2.
Independent Constitutional Commissions.
Office of the Ombudsman. [Art. IX,
National Economic and Development Authority. [Art. XII, Sec. 20]
• •
Executive Order (fact-finding agency) / Authority of law.
•
Sec. 5]
•
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Sec. 17]
•
Consultative Body on Indigenous Cultural Communities. [Art. XVI, Sec.
SEC, etc.
Adjustment of individual controversies
•
National Police Commission. [Art. XVI, Sec. 6]
Regulation of private businesses and
•
National Language Commission. [Art.
3.
CSC, COMELEC, COA.
Other Constitutional Bodies.
•
Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, Office
An agency on Cooperatives. [Art. XII,
of the Special Prosecutor, Central
Sec. 15]
Monetary Authority, Economic and
An independent Central Monetary Authority. [Art XII, Sec. 20]
Planning Agency, Commission on Human Rights, National Language Commission, National Police
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
155 Commission, Commission on
b.
Indigenous Cultural Communities.
4.
technical knowledge, which would not be available, if it were taken through the
Regulatory Commission.
•
SEC, NLRC, Office of the Insurance
ordinary courts of law. c.
Commissioner, Land Transportation
in a way not possible if it were only the
CID, BIR.
outcome of a controversy between private
Public Corporation.
•
UP, NPC, MWSS, NDC, DBP.
It ensures that the action taken will have regard for the interests of the general public
Commission, Bureau of Customs,
5.
It provides for action that will be based on
parties to a suit.
d.
It permits the rules for the prevention of socially hurtful conduct to be flexible rules
5.
Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations
a)
Supplementary / detailed legislation: To “fix
based on discretion, and thus make possible the introduction of order in fields not advantageously permitting the application of
the details” in the execution and enforcement
rules of a rigid permanent character.
of a legislative policy (e.g. Rules and
[Dickinson]
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code).
b)
Interpretative legislation: To construe or
B. Cases
interpret the provisions of a statute to be enforced; binding on all concerned until changed. They have the effect of law and are entitled to great respect, having in their favor the presumption of legality [Gonzalez v Land Bank]. The erroneous application of the law by public officers does not bar a subsequent correct application [Manila Jockey Club v CA (1998)] (e.g. BIR Circulars, CB Circulars).
c)
Contingent legislation: Made by an administrative authority on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law depends. [Cruz v Youngberg]
6.
Advantages of Administrative Regulation a.
Regulation by government opens a way for action to be taken in the public interest to prevent future harm when there would be no assurance that any action would be taken if the initiative were left wholly to interested individuals.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
156 •
•
Manila Electric Co. v Pasay Transport (1932)
Members of SC and inferior courts of justice shall
The SC should strictly confine its own sphere of
not be designated to any agency performing
influence to the powers expressly or by
quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
implication conferred on it by the Organic Act.
Administrative functions “involve the regulation
The SC and its members should not nor cannot be
and control over the conduct and affairs of
required to exercise any power or to perform any
individuals for their own welfare, and the
task, or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
promulgation of rules and regulations top better
connected with administering judicial functions. A
carry out legislative policy or such as are
board of arbitrators is not a court in any proper
designated to any agency by the organic law of its
sense of the term, and possesses none of the
existence.” RTC judges should render assistance
jurisdiction granted by the Organic Act to the SC.
to said agencies only when such assistance may
Noblejas vs. Teehankee (1968)
be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their
The legislature could not have intended for the
judicial duties.
Land Registration Commissioner and other
•
similarly ranked officials to hold same rank as a
An indirect appearance as counsel by an
judge of the CFI, because it would place upon the
Assemblyman before an administrative body
SC the duty of investigating and disciplining these
circumvents the Constitutional prohibition. A
officials, who are performing executive functions
contrary rule would permit an Assemblyman to
and thus under the supervision and control of the
influence an administrative body just by acquiring
President. It would be unconstitutional, being
minimal participation in the “interest” of the client
violative of the separation of powers, and would
and then “intervening” in the proceedings.
diminish the control of the Chief Executive over
•
executive officials.
•
Puyat v De Guzman
Phil. Ass’n of Service Exporters v Torres Both LOIs and EOs are presidential issuances;
Garcia v. Macaraig (1971)
one may repeal or otherwise alter, modify or
The line between what a judge may and may not
amend the other, depending on which comes
do in working with other offices under the other
later.
departments must always be jealously observed,
•
Eastern Shipping Lines v CA (1998)
lest the principle of separation of powers be
An administrative agency has no discretion WON
eroded. No judge of even the lowest court should
to implement a law. Its duty is to enforce the
place himself in a position where his actuations
law. Thus if there is a conflict between the
would be subject to review and prior approval
circular issued by the agency and an EO issued by
and, worse still, review, before they can have any
the president, the latter prevails.
legal effect, by any authority other than the CA or the SC. •
II.
Control of Administrative Action
In re: Manzano (1988)
A. Administrative agencies and the executive power of the President 1.
Legislative control a.
Powers of the Legislative 1.
Creation and abolition.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
157 •
•
Congress can create, divide, merge, modify, or even abolish
economy and efficiency of
agencies.
•
government operations.
Power to abolish is not effective
2.
because administrative agencies Appropriation. •
Congressional investigation.
•
are needed.
2.
effect because annual
c) 3.
any regulation before it takes effect.
2.
Executive control
The standards must be effective and sufficient.
Prescription of minimum procedural requirements. •
Legislative veto: Congress has “right” to approve/disapprove
Ineffective because the
lack the expertise.
Legislative supervision.
•
Pprescription of legislative standards.
those who make the standards
Persons appearing therein afforded their rights.
Effective only as an aid in
standards should be flexible and
5.
Conducted in accordance
procedure; and
need for constant regulation.
•
b)
with duly published rules of
Investigatory.
•
In aid of legislation;
Congressional approval,
legislation and cannot serve the
4.
a)
appropriation usually gets otherwise, public suffers.
•
3 limitations under the 1987 Constitution:
Congress has budgetary power. In actual life, no appreciable
3.
E.g. budgetary hearings – Allows
There must be a shift towards having administrative standards
Art. VII, Sec.1, 1987 Consti. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987 Consti. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
instead to allow the agencies enough flexibility. b.
Congressional Oversight Committee
•
over all offices in the Executive branch,
[Macalintal v COMELEC]
1.
Power of appointment, power of control
and sworn duty to preserve and defend
Scrutiny.
the Constitution and execute the laws
•
(which entitles the President to influence
Based on the power of
the conduct of administrative bodies if in
appropriation.
•
Sec. 22, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution: Department heads may be ordered to appear on any matter pertaining to their departments.
his view they violate the Constitution).
•
The President controls administrative agencies except when such agencies are created by the legislature. One must check the enabling laws regarding the particular legislative intent. If the law is
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
158 silent, the President cannot exercise control but merely supervision. 3.
•
revise an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or officer
Judicial Control
• •
upon whom that judgment or
Power of judicial review over decisions of
discretion is lawfully vested especially
administrative agencies.
when the matter involves basically
Radical view: Courts should review not
technical matters coming under the special technical knowledge and
only agency’s conclusions of law but even
training of the agency or officer.
its determinations of fact and policy.
•
The Ombudsman may not veto or
[Concerned Officials of the MWSS
Traditional/Accepted view: Judicial review is allowed on questions of law and jurisdiction, but not on questions of fact
v Vasquez (1995)]
•
including cabinet members, GOCC’s
and policy. Courts defer to the expertise
and local government are within its
and experience of agencies in their areas
jurisdiction, except those who may
of specialization. Courts are confined to seeing to it that agencies stay within the limits of their power or to checking
All elective and appointive officials,
be removed only by impeachment.
•
The office of the Ombudsman has the
arbitrariness in the administrative
power to investigate and prosecute
process.
on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any
4.
Ombudsman
public officer or employee, office or
a.
agency, when such act or omission
b.
c.
Powers:
1.
Investigatory.
2.
Prosecutorial.
•
Own initiative.
•
From a complaint.
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or
3.
Public assistance functions.
omissions complained of are related
4.
Authority to inquire and obtain
to, or connected with, or arise from,
information.
the performance of his official duty.
Necessary characteristics:
It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official.
1.
Political independence.
2.
Accessibility and expedition /
direct, reverse or modify a decision
independence.
of a prosecutor deputized or
3.
Grant of investigatory power.
designated to be under the
4.
Absence of revisory jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction:
The Ombudsman may review, revise,
Ombudsman’s control and supervision. [Lastimosa v Vasquez (1995)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
159 Note: The Ombudsman has absolutely no revisory powers.
III.
Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies
Rather, the delegated prosecutor acts as the Ombudsman’s agent; therefore, all actions/decisions made
A. Legislative function
by the prosecutor are deemed as action/decisions of the Ombudsman.
1.
Non-delegation doctrine
Seen in this light, the Ombudsman
•
has the right to change his
Potestas delegata non delegare potest.
action/decision.
– What has been delegated cannot be
The Ombudsman may not initiate a
delegated.
criminal or administrative complaint against a judge. The Ombudsman
a.
Requisites for a valid delegation: [Pelaez
must indorse the case to the SC for
v Auditor General (1965)]
appropriate action. No other entity
1)
or official of the Government has the
it must set forth the policy to be
competence to review a judicial order or decision and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a
executed.
2)
determinate or determinable, to
[Fuentes v Office of the
which the delegate must conform in
Ombudsman (2001)] Under Sec. 13(3), Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, the “recommendation”
The law must fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently
criminal or administrative complaint.
•
The law must be complete in itself;
the performance of his functions.
•
The standard may be:
that emanates from the Ombudsman
(a)
Express;
after it has conducted its
(b)
Implied; [Edu v Ericta (1970)]
investigation is not merely advisory
or
but binding and mandatory. The
(c)
Ombudsman has the authority to
the same matter and not
determine the administrative liability
necessarily in the same law
of a public official or employee, and
being challenged. [Chiongbian v
direct and compel the head of the office or agency concerned to implement the penalty imposed. [Ledesma v CA (2005)]
•
Embodied in other statutes on
Orbos (1995)]
•
Sufficient standard: One which
(a)
Defines legislative policy,
The pendency of an action is not a
marks its limits, maps out its
prerequisite for the Ombudsman to
boundaries and specifies the
start its own investigation. It can do
public agency to apply it; and
so even on a verbal, unsigned, or unverified complaint. [BIR v
(b)
Indicates the circumstances under which the legislative
Ombudsman (2002)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
160 command is to be effected.
1.
[Santiago v COMELEC
[Pelaez v Auditor General (1965)]
(1997); ABAKADA Guro
•
List v Ermita (2005)]
•
Creation of municipalities.
Note: Although the creation of municipalities is purely a
The Constitution has never been
legislative matter, Chiongbian v
regarded as denying to Congress the
Orbos says that the merging of
necessary flexibility and practicality
administrative regions is an
which will enable it to perform its
administrative matter.
function in laying down policies and
2. Defining a crime.
establishing standards, while leaving
[US v Ang Tang Ho (1922);
to selected instrumentalities the
People v Maceren]
making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the legislative
2. Permissible delegation
a.
Ascertainment of fact.
•
to apply. There is a distinction
officers the power to declare the
between (a) delegation of power to
existence of facts which call into
make the law and (b) conferring
operation its provisions and may
authority/discretion as to its
grant them and their subordinate
execution. [Panama Refining v
officers power to ascertain and
Ryan (1935)]
determine appropriate facts as a
Cardozo, J. dissent: There has
basis of procedure in the
been no grant to the Executive of any
enforcement of laws. Such functions,
roving commission to inquire into
whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are
evils and then, upon discovering
merely incidental to the exercise of
them, do anything he pleases.
power granted by law to clear
Discretion is not unconfined and
navigable streams of unauthorized
vagrant. It is canalized within
obstructions. They are validly
banks that keep it from
conferable upon executive officials
overflowing. b.
provided the party affected is given
Valid delegation:
the opportunity to be heard. [Lovina
[People v Vera (1937)] 1.
Fix tariffs, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage fees.
v Moreno (1963)]
b.
Filling in of details. •
A statute which leaves to the
2.
Emergency powers.
3.
Delegation to the people-at-large.
4.
Delegation to local authorities.
expertise is a recognized delegation
5.
Delegation to administrative
of legislative power.
agencies. c.
A statute may give to non-judicial
What cannot be delegated
Executive the power to fill in the technical details in view of the latter’s
•
The legislature, from necessity and as a means of enforcement and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
161 execution, have to delegate such
c.
h)
If there is discrepancy between
power. [Alegre v Collector of
the basic law and an
Customs (1920)]
administrative rule, the basic law
Administrative rule-making.
prevails. [Maxima Realty v
1.
Parkway Real Estate (2004)]
Limits on rule-making power:
a)
i)
Must be authorized by law.
new legislative policy, requiring
[Olsen v Aldanese (1922)]
b)
the adjustment of various other
Must not amend the law or must
contending policies. [Ople v
not be inconsistent with the law.
Torres (1998)]
[Syman v Jacinto (1953)]
c)
j)
Must not define a criminal act.
(Ass’n of Phil. Coconut
Must be germane to the purpose
Desiccators v PHILCOA
of the law which it was meant to
(1998))
implement; power to promulgate
k)
rules may be legitimately
Corrections), the rulemaking
provisions of the law into effect.
authority legislatively vested in
[Toledo v CSC (1991)]
f)
May not delegate, to a mere constituent unit (e.g. Bureau of
exercised only for carrying the
e)
May not dismantle a regulatory system that was set up by law.
[People v Maceren (1977)]
d)
May not unilaterally impose a
the head of an executive
Must not restrict, expand,
department (e.g. DoJ), such
diminish, supplant or modify the
being an abdication of
law. [GMCR v Bell Telecom
responsibility by the latter.
(1997)]
[Echegaray v Secretary of
Action of the administrative
Justice (1998)]
agency to be set aside if there is
2.
Publication and effectivity.
an error of law, grave abuse or lack of jurisdiction clearly conflicting with either the letter
g)
Art. 2, Civil Code (as amended by EO 200, June 8, 1987). –
or the spirit of the law. [Land
Laws shall take effect after 15 days
Bank v CA (1995)]
following the completion of their publication
The basic law should prevail as
either in the Official Gazette or in a
embodiment of the legislative purpose; rules and regulations cannot go beyond the law’s terms and provisions. [China Banking v Member of the Board of Trustees, Home
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. Sec. 4, 1987 Admin Code. Effectivity. – In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall
Development Mutual Fund
become effective 15 days from the date of
(1999)]
filing as above provided unless a different
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
162 (a) Different date is fixed by law
date is fixed by law, or specified in the ruling in cases of imminent danger to
or specified in the rule.
public health, safety, and welfare, the
(b) In case of imminent danger
existence of which must be expressed in a
to public health, safety and
statement accompanying the rule. The
welfare.
agency shall take appropriate measures to
•
make emergency rules known to persons
General rule: Publication is indispensable especially if the
who may be affected by them.
rule is general in character. Sec. 5, 1987 Admin Code. Publication
Exceptions:
and Recording. – The University of the
(a) Interpretative rules.
Philippines Law Center shall:
(b) Internal regulations (i.e.
(1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting
regulating only personnel of
forth the text of rules filed with it during
agency).
the preceding quarter; and
(c) Letters of instructions issued
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all
by administrative superior to
rules thus published and remaining in
subordinates.
effect together with a complete index and
•
appropriate tables.
Circulars which prescribe a penalty for its violation should be
Sec. 6, 1987 Admin Code. Omission of
published before becoming
Some Rules. – (1) The University of the
effective for the people to be
Philippines Law Center may omit from the
officially informed. Before the
bulletin or the codification any rule if its publication would be unduly cumbersome,
public may be bound by its
expensive or otherwise inexpedient, but
contents, especially its penal
copies of that rule shall be made available
provisions, a law, regulation or
on application in the agency which
circular must be published and
adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a
the people officially and
notice stating the general subject matter
specifically informed of said
of the omitted rule and how copies thereof
contents and its penalties.
may be obtained.
•
[People v Que Po Lay (1954)]
•
General rule: Administrative
of general circulation is
rules and regulations are subject
indispensable in every case for
to the publication and effectivity
the effectivity of administrative
rules of the Admin Code in
rules and regulations. But the
relation to the Civil Code:
legislature may in its discretion
Effectivity is 15 days after
provide that the usual 15-day
publication, not 15 days from
period be shortened or extended.
date of filing with the UP Law Center. [Republic v Express Telecomm (2002)]
Publication in OG or newspaper
[Tanada v Tuvera] 3.
Penal regulations
Exceptions:
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
163 Sec. 6, 1987 Admin Code. Omission of
•
Administrative interpretations
Some Rules. – (2) Every rule establishing an
are appropriate aids toward
offense or defining an act which, pursuant to
eliminating construction and
law is punishable as a crime or subject to a
uncertainty in doubtful cases.
penalty shall in all cases be published in full
When laws are susceptible of two
text.
or more interpretations, the
•
administrative agency should If a rule is penal in character, the rule must be published before it takes effect. (People v Que Po
make known its official position.
•
by an administrative agency of
Lay (1954)]
•
•
4.
the law under which it acts
The law itself must so declare
provide a practical guide as to
the act as punishable. The law
how the agency will seek to
should also define or fix the
apply the law, and to which
penalty for the violation.
courts and litigants may properly
The domain of penal statues is
resort for guidance.
exclusive to the legislature and
•
Construction and interpretation
•
The administrative construction
cannot be delegated.
or interpretation is not
Administrative rules and
controlling as to the proper
regulations cannot amend or
construction of a statute, but
modify or expand the law by
generally it is given great weight,
including, prohibiting or
has a very persuasive influence
punishing certain acts which the
and may actually be regarded by
law does not even define as a
the courts as the controlling
criminal act. [People v Maceren
factor. Still, regulations enacted,
(1977)]
pursuant to the broad rule-
Interpretative rules.
making power under a statute
•
conferring a privilege to be
Administrative agencies in the
exercised "under regulations pre-
discharge of their duties are
caused" by an administrative
necessarily called upon to
agency, will not be disturbed
construe and apply the
except for cogent and persuasive
provisions of the law under which
reasons and clear conviction of
they function. This necessity for
error.
and power of construction and interpretation does not change
•
There is no constitutional
the character of a ministerial
requirement for a hearing in the
duty, or involve an unlawful use
promulgation of a general
of legislative or judicial power.
regulation by an administrative
They may also interpret their
body. Where (a) the rule is
own rules which have the force
procedural, or (b) the rules are
and effect of law.
in effect merely legal opinions, or
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
164 (c) the rules are substantive, the
what the law means. [Victorias
class to be affected is large, and
v Social Security Commission
the questions to be resolved
(1962)]
involve the use of discretion committed to the rule-making
•
agency will be set aside if there
body, no notice or prior hearing
was error of law, or abuse of
is required. [Corona v United
power, or lack of jurisdiction, or
Harbor Pilots Ass’n of the
grave abuse of discretion clearly
Phils. (1997)]
•
spirit of the legislative
administrative rules in the nature
enactment. [Peralta v CSC
of subordinate legislation and
(1992)]
interpretative rules. The former is designed to implement a law by providing its details; before its adoption there must be a hearing under the Administrative Code. When an administrative rule substantially adds to or increases the burden of those concerned, an administrative agency must accord those directly affected a chance to be heard before its issuance. 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 (1956)]. Such wrong interpretation cannot place the Government in estoppel to correct or overrule the same. [Phil. Bank of Communications v CIR (1999)]
•
conflicting with the letter and
There is a distinction between
those which are merely
•
Action of the administrative
Administrative interpretation at best merely advisory; it is the
•
General requirements: (a) must have been issued on authority of law; (b) must be within the scope and purview of the law; (c) must be reasonable.
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.
Due process involves whether the parties were afforded the opportunity to be notified and heard before the issuance of the ruling.
Interpretative Rules passed pursuant to its quasi-judicial capacity. merely clarify the meaning of a preexisting law by inferring its implications. need not be published. 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 means that the body observed the proper procedure in passing rules.
courts that finally determine
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
165 d.
Fixing of rates, wages and prices
quasi-judicial. The distinction is not idle:
Sec. 9, 1987 Admin Code. 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 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon.
•
that all rules with respect to fixing of rates must be accompanied with notice and hearing, regardless if the rate-fixing function is legislative or quasi-judicial.
•
•
entity (quasi-judicial). [Philcomsat v Alcuaz (1989)] Note, however, that the Administrative Code now does not differentiate legislative from quasijudicial rate-fixing: notice and hearing is required for both.
•
other public service. The latter may
agencies because the legislature does
propose new rates, but these will not
not have the time, knowledge and
be effective without the approval of
means necessary to handle the
the administrative agency. [KMU v
matter efficiently. Need for dispatch, better met by administrative •
Basis
The power to fix rates cannot be delegated to a common carrier or
Function delegated to administrative
flexibility and technical know-how
Notice and hearing necessary if the rate to be fixed applies to only one
(3) In cases of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. Sec. 2(3), 1987 Admin Code. “Rate” means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms, including individual or joint rates, tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as well as communication, mileage, kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law of regulation to be observed and followed by any person.
Sec. 9 (2) of the Admin Code implies
Garcia (1994)]
•
In fixing the rate, the present
agencies.
valuation of all the property of a
Generally, the power to fix rates is a
public utility, viz, not only of the
quasi-legislative function. But if the
assets used by the public but also of
rate is applicable only to an
the fixed assets must be made on
individual, then the function becomes
that basis so a fair return of
Quasi-
Quasi-judicial
legislative
investment can be had. On principle, the property is deemed taken and condemned by the public at the time
As to
The procedure is
The procedure must
procedural
that normally
observe the
standards
observed in the
requirements of due
should go up and down with the
making of rules.
process in the 7
physical valuation of the property.
As to time
of filing the petition, and the rate
cardinal rules.
[Ynchausti v Public Utility
Rule-making is
Adjudication is
Commissioner (1922)]
prospective in
retrospective in
character, for it
character, for it
only governs
investigates acts
future acts.
already done and then applies the law on the facts.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] As to Legislative rules Adjudicative rulings [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] application are of general apply only to [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
application
parties
166 e.
Licensing Function
Sec. 17, 1987 Admin Code. 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. Sec. 18, 1987 Admin Code. 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. Sec. 2(10), 1987 Admin Code. “License” includes the whole or any party 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. Sec. 2(11), 1987 Admin Code. “Licensing” includes agency process involving the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification or conditioning or a license.
•
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 (1976)]
•
Notice and hearing in licensing is only required if it is a contested case. Otherwise, it can be dispensed with, as in the issuance of driver’s licenses.
B. Judicial Function
1.
Investigation and adjudication:
Sec. 10, 1987 Admin Code. 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. 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 crossexamine 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.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
167 •
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.
What is not inherent, and therefore requires an explicit grant from law, is their adjudicative power, i.e. the power to decide controversies involving rights and obligations of 3rd persons appearing before them, or the power to pass upon legal questions, which involve the
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.
application of the law to the facts. Except in the case of agencies with specific grant of adjudicative power (NLRC, SEC, CBAA), most other administrative agencies only have the power of investigation and not of
•
adjudication.
Just as there is no uniform procedure for all agencies, so also the procedure depends on the function that the agency is performing. Thus, when it is performing its adjudicative function, the procedural safeguards akin to those in courts must be observed. When performing its rule-making function, it must follow the procedure adopted by legislative bodies. When performing its
Kind of Proceedings Nature of Proceedings Rules of Procedure
Administrative
Nature and Extent of Decision
Decision limited to matters of general concern
Parties
The agency itself may be a party to the proceedings before it
licensing function, a modified judicial procedure is required. When dispensing government largess, it needs to
Judicial
Inquisitorial
Adversarial
Liberally applied
Follow technical rules in the Rules of Court Decision includes matters brought as issue by the parties The parties are only the private litigates
observe due process, since these largesses (pensions, license to practice a profession, social benefits, basis services)
2.
Power to issue subpoena and declare contempt
are new forms of property.
•
Administrative agencies have the power to conduct investigations and hearings, and make findings and recommendations thereon, since these are inherent in their functions as administrative agencies. The findings of facts by administrative bodies which observed procedural safeguards (e.g. notice and
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.
hearing parties, and a full consideration of evidence) are recorded the greatest respect by courts.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
168 (ex. PD 902-A creating the SEC). If there
Sec. 6, P.D. 902 – A. In order to effectively exercise such jurisdiction, the SEC shall possess the following powers: a) To punish for contempt of the Commission, both direct and indirect, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of, and penalties prescribed by, the Rules of Court. xxx e) To issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witnesses to appear in any proceedings of the Commission and in appropriate cases order search and seizure or cause the search and seizure of all documents, papers, files and records as well as books of accounts of any entity or person under investigation as may be necessary for the proper disposition of cases before it.
is no express grant, the agency must invoke the aid of the RTC. Rationale: Power to punish for contempt is inherently judicial.
•
The power to declare contempt cannot be used in the discharge of ministerial functions, but only in relation to quasijudicial functions [Guevarra v COMELEC (1958)]
•
It is not for the SC to whittle down the authority conferred on administrative
•
•
All agencies with quasi-judicial functions
agencies to assure the effective
have the power to issue subpoena, even
administration of a statute. If the matter
if the administrative agency’s charter is
is properly within its cognizance, the
silent as to such power. Rationale: Power
means necessary to give it force and
to adjudicate will be rendered inutile if
effectiveness should be deemed implied,
there is no power to issue subpoena.
unless the power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private
Subpoenas may be enforced WON
rights. [Catura v CIR (1971)]
adjudication is involved, WON probably
•
cause is shown, and even before the
A public official exercises power, not
issuance of a complaint. It is not
rights. The government itself is merely an
necessary that a specific charge or
agency through which the will of the
complaint for a violation of law be
State is expressed and enforced. Its
pending; it is enough that the
officers are likewise agents entrusted
investigation be for a lawfully authorized
with the responsibility of discharging its
purpose. The purpose of the subpoena is
functions. As such there is no
to discover evidence, not to prove a
presumption that they are empowered to
pending charge but upon which to make
act. [Tolentino v Inciong (1979)]
one if justified. Test for valid enforcement of subpoena:
(a)
Within the authority of the agency.
(b)
Demand not too indefinite.
(c)
Information reasonably relevant. [Evangelista v Jarencio (1975)]
•
Not all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to cite for contempt, as the power must be expressly granted in the agency’s charter
3.
Warrants of arrest, administrative searches
Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Consti. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge, after examination under oath or affirmation by the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
169 Exception: deportation of illegal and
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Art. IV, Sec. 3, 1973 Consti. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and whatever purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
undesirable aliens following a final order of deportation. •
(a) Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37 of CA618
(b)
•
no grounds needed; has sole discretion under international law
•
and the Deportation Board is his
The phrase “or such other responsible
authorized agent, the power granted to
officer as may be authorized by law” in
the latter does not extend to the power
the 1973 Constitution was deleted to
to arrest. The exercise of such power
forestall human rights abuses as during
demands the exercise of discretion by the
Martial Law, when one could be arrested
one exercising the same, to determine
by the military on mere suspicion by the
whether under specific circumstances,
strength of the warrant of arrest, ASSO
the curtailment of liberty is warranted.
or PDA issued by the Ministry of National
And while ministerial duties may be
Defense or Generals in their respective
delegated, official functions requiring
regions.
exercise of discretion and judgment may not be so delegated. Immigration
The word “shall” was added to “warrant
authorities can issue warrants of arrest against undesirable aliens only if such
subsequent phrase was reworded in this
issuance is pursuant to a final order of
wise: “to be determined personally” by
deportation. They cannot issue warrants
the judge. This is to give more
for purposes of investigation, as the
responsibility to the judge who will issue
Constitution provides that only judges
the warrant of arrest and be accountable
can do so to determine probable cause.
for it.
[Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board
Both provisions are express guarantees
(1963)]
against unwarranted violations of the
Note: The Constitution does not
privacy and security of persons and their
distinguish between warrants in a
properties.
•
While it is clear that the President’s power of investigation may be delegated
of arrest shall issue” and finally the
•
President after due investigation pursuant to Sec 69 of Admin Code
0
•
Two ways of deporting:
criminal case and administrative warrants
Administrative agencies cannot issue warrants of arrest. Only a judge may issue warrants. [Salazar v Achacoso (1990)]
in administrative proceedings.
•
The CFI has no jurisdiction to restrain deportation proceedings as they are within the jurisdiction of the Immigration authorities under the Immigration Act.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
170 However, the issuance of the warrants of
•
arrest by the Commissioner, solely for the
CID preparatory to the deportation
purpose of investigation and before a
proceedings is illegal, although the CID
final order of deportation is issued,
can order arrests for the purpose of the
conflicts with paragraph 3, Sec. 1, Art. III
deportation proceedings. Here, the
of the 1935 Constitution, which states
particular circumstances place doubt on
that the power to determine probable
the propriety of the arrest. The Mission
cause for warrants of arrest is limited to
Order was issued on the basis of sworn
judges. Notice and bonds are sufficient to
complaints of a single individual. The
ensure that the subject will appear at the
essential requisite of probable cause is
hearing without prejudice to more drastic
absent. But even assuming that the
measures in case of recalcitrant
arrest was at first illegal, supervening
respondents. Warrants of arrest issued
events have rendered this petition for
solely for the purpose of investigation
habeas corpus moot and academic.
and before a final order of deportation is
[Lucien Tran Van Nghia v Liwag
issued are therefore null and void. [Vivo
(1989)]
v Montesa (1968)]
•
The arrest and detention of Lucien by the
These two cases contradict the Qua Chee
The deportation charges were in
Gan doctrine because both allowed arrest by
accordance with the Philippine
Commissioner upon determination of
Immigration Act and the Revised
existence of a ground to deport.
Administrative Code, which empowers
Consider these two cases as a glitch. The
the Commissioner to arrest aliens upon a
Qua Chee Gan doctrine prevails, as
warrant issued by him and deported upon
supported by Salazar. Not only is Salazar a
warrant issued by the same after a
later case, it was also decided en banc, while
determination of the existence of a
Harvey was decided by a division.
ground for deportation by the Board of Commissioners. Deportation proceedings are administrative in nature, and are not penal, but merely preventive. Thus, it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary court proceedings. The requirement of probable cause, determined by a judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings. What is essential however is that (1) there be a specific charge against the alien, (2) there be a fair hearing conducted, and (3) the charge be substantiated by competent evidence. [Harvey v Defensor-Santiago (1988)]
•
Art, 38 of the Labor Code allowing the Secretary of Labor the power to issue warrants of arrest is unconstitutional for under the Constitution, only a judge may issue search or arrest warrants. Vivo v. Montesa is not a precedent because the arrest warrant was given to carry out a final decision of deportation. The SC reaffirms the following principles: (1) Under Sec.2, Art. III of the Constitution, only judges may issue search warrants and warrants of arrest; and (2) the exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner may order arrested, following a final order of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
171 deportation, for the purpose of the same.
(d)
[Salazar v Achacoso (1990)]
documents.
Note: Following (2), the Harvey and
(e)
Lucien cases prove to be anomalies.
•
Subpoena may not be made and enforced in the field.
A warrant of arrest issued by a commissioner
(f)
to be valid must be for the sole purpose of
Subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of reasonableness of demand prior
executing a final order of deportation. A
to suffering penalties for refusal to
warrant of arrest issued by the commissioner
comply.
for purposes of investigation only, is null and
The particular agency’s demand for access
void for being unconstitutional, following Qua
will be measured against a flexible standard
Chee Gan. [Board of Commissioners v
of reasonableness that takes into account the
Dela Rosa (1991)]
•
Subpoena must designate the needed
public need for effective enforcement of
Warrantless non-emergency inspection of
regulations. [See v Seattle]
residential and commercial premises by city health officials are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the 4th Amendment. It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the constitution only
4.
Imposition of fines and penalties: •
Agencies have the power to impose fines and penalties.
•
Test for valid imposition:
(a)
when he is suspected of criminal behavior.
authority of Congress to legislate.
Warrants likely should normally be sought
(b)
only after entry is refused unless there is a
(c)
for securing immediate entry. [Camara v Municipal Court (1967)]
Agency expressly authorized to impose penalty. [Oceanic Steam Navigation v Stranahan (1908)]
A warrant must first be secured. There is no justification for relaxing 4th Amendment
Penalty to be imposed must be administrative or civil in character.
citizen complaint or other satisfactory reason
•
Subject matter must be within
•
Where the statute does not authorize
safeguards where the official inspection is
executive officials themselves to impose
intended for the enforcement of laws
the penalty, recourse will have to be
prescribing minimum physical standards for
made to the ordinary courts.
commercial premises. Warrants are a
•
Imposition of criminal penalties, if not
necessary and tolerable limitation on the right
clearly stated in the statute, is a judicial
to enter upon and inspect places of business.
and not an administrative function
Limitations on administrative subpoenas of
[Scoty’s Department Store v Micaller
corporate books and documents:
(1956)]
(a)
Limited in scope.
(b)
Relevant in purpose.
(c)
Specific directives so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome.
•
The fixing of penalties for criminal offenses is an exercise of legislative power which cannot be delegated by the Legislature. [US v Barrias (1908)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
172 •
8.
A fine in the nature of a civil penalty (i.e.
Maintain monetary stability, promote rising
not in the nature of a criminal penalty)
level of production & real income. [People v
that is exacted not so much as a penalty
Joliffe (1959)]
•
for the violation of administrative rules but for the need to stress desistance
What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient standard. [Burstyn v Wilson (1952)]
from wanton disregard of existing rules, regulations, or requirements, is an
IV.
Administrative Procedure
administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecution. If
A. In Rule-Making: Price, wage or rate-fixing (see related areas in this reviewer)
every time the agency wishes to impose a civil penalty for violations it had to
B. In Adjudication of cases
resort to courts of justice in protracted litigations, it could not serve its purpose
1.
Rules of Procedure
2.
Due Process
as an administrative body. [Civil Aeronautics Board v Phil. Airlines (1975)]
a. Cardinal Primary Rights: [Ang Tibay v CIR (1950)]
C.
Judicial determination of sufficiency of
1.
Right to a hearing.
•
standards
Includes the right of a part to present his own case and submit
1.
Interest of law and order. [Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]
2.
Justice, equity and substantial merits of the case. [International Hardwood v Pangil (1940)]
4.
What is moral, educational or amusing. [Mutual Film Corp v Industrial Commission (1914)]
5.
Adequate and efficient instruction. [PACU v Secretary (1955)]
6. 7.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
Public interest. [People v Rosenthal & Osmeña (1939)]
3.
evidence in support thereof.
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
Reasonableness as an implied standard in
evidence presented at the hearing or
every law. [Wisconsin v Whitman (1928)]
at least contained in the record and
To promote simplicity, economy or efficiency. [Cervantes v Auditor-General (1952)]
disclosed to the parties affected.
•
Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
173
6.
their right to know and meet the
one who issued the appealed
case against them.
decision. Otherwise, the review
Independent consideration of judge.
becomes a farce; it is rendered
•
Must not simply accept the views
meaningless. [Rivera v CSC
of a subordinate in arriving at a
(1995)]
decision. 7.
verbal arguments only in court; one
as to let the parties know the various
may also be heard through
issues involved and the reasons for
pleadings. [Casimiro v Tandog
the decision rendered.
(2005)]. WON to hold an adversarial
•
Does due process always entail
trial is discretionary and parties
notice and hearing prior to the
cannot demand it as a matter of
deprivation of a right? No.
right. [Vinta Maritime v NLRC
Hearing may occur after the
(1978)]. Administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in the
in which case, there must be a
strict judicial sense. [Ocampo v
chance to seek reconsideration.
Office of the Ombudsman
[UP Board of Regents v CA
(2000)].
•
No notice is necessary for
The right to substantive and
suspension, because the latter is only
procedural due process is applicable
preventive in nature. [Busuego v CA
in administrative proceedings. [CSC
(1999)].
v Lucas (1999)]
•
The right of a party to confront and
Presence of a party at a trial is not
cross-examine opposing witness is a
always the essence of due process.
fundamental right which is part of
All that the law requires is the
due process. If without his fault, his
element of fairness; that the
right to cross-examine is violated, he
parties be given notice of trial and
is entitled to have the direct
an opportunity to be heard
examination stricken off the record.
[Asprec v Itchon (1966)] or, as
[Bachrach Motors v CIR (1978)]
applied to administrative
•
Evidence on record must be fully
proceedings, an opportunity to
disclosed to the parties. [American
seek reconsideration [De la Cruz
Inter-Fashion v Office of the
v Abille (2001)] or an opportunity
President (1991)]
to explain one’s side [Pilipinas Loan v SEC (2001)].
•
•
cases [Goss v Lopez (1975)],
(1999)]
•
“To be heard” does not mean only
Decision rendered in such a manner
deprivation, as in emergency
•
•
•
Respondents in administrative cases are not entitled to be informed of
The law, in prescribing a process of
findings of investigative committees
appeal to a higher level,
but only of the decision of the
contemplates that the reviewing
administrative body. [Pefianco v
officer is a person different from the
Moral (2000)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
174 •
Mere consultations and conferences
[Equitable Banking v NLRC
may not be valid substitutes for
(1997)]
(b) When it affects a person’s status
observance of notice and hearing.
•
[Equitable Banking v NLRC
and liberty. [Commissioner of
(1997)]
Immigration v Fernandez]
2. When not required:
Three factors determining constitutional sufficiency of
(a) Urgent reasons.
administrative procedures:
(b) Discretion is exercised by an
(a) Private interest that will be
officer vested with it upon an
affected.
undisputed fact. [Suntay v
(b) Risk of erroneous deprivation of
People (1957)]
such interest and probable value
(c) If it involves the exercise of
of safeguards.
discretion and there is no grave
(c) Public interest vis-à-vis
abuse. [De Bisschop v Galang]
government costs. [Matthews v
(d) When rules to govern future
Eldridge]
•
conduct of persons or
Due process is violated when there is
enterprises, unless law provides
failure to sufficiently explain the
otherwise. [Taxicab Operators
reason for the decision rendered;
of Manila v Board of
lack of support therefor in substantial
Transportation]
(e) In the valid exercise of police
evidence; and the imputation of a violation and imposition of a
power. [Pollution Adjudication
corresponding fine despite the
Board v CA (1991)]
absence of due notice and hearing.
c.
Form and promulgation of judgment
[Globe Telecom v NTC (2004)].
•
The right against self-incrimination
Sec. 2(8), 1987 Admin Code. ”Decision”
may be invoked by the respondent at
means the whole or any part of the final
the time he is called by the
disposition, not an interlocutory character,
complainant as a witness. However,
whether affirmative, negative, or injunctive in
if he voluntarily takes the witness
form, of an agency in any matter, including
stand, he can be cross examined; but
licensing, rate fixing, and granting of rights and
he may still invoke the right when
privileges.
the question calls for an answer which incriminates him of an offense
Sec. 14. Decision. — Every decision rendered
other than that charged. [People v
by the agency in a contested case shall be in
Ayson]
writing and shall state clearly the facts and the
b. Notice and hearing: 1. When required: (a) When the law specifically requires notice and hearing.
law on which it is based. The agency shall decide each case within thirty days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
175 addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or
discuss the reasons for their dissent.
to them.
[Indias v Phil Iron Mines (1957)]
•
If a power to decide is granted to a
Sec. 15. Finality of order. — The decision of
specific authority, it can’t abdicate
the agency shall be final and executory after
from this responsibility by delegating
the receipt of copy thereof by the party
the duty to decide the case. It must
adversely affected unless within that period an
personally decide such. It can
administrative appeal or judicial review, of
delegate the power to hear but not
proper, has been perfected. One motion for
the power to decide. [American
reconsideration may be filed, which shall
Tobacco v Director of Patents
suspend the running of the said period.
(1975)]
•
The date of the promulgation of the
Sec. 16. Publication and Compilation of
judgment is the date when the Board
Decisions. — Every agency shall publish and
voted and resolved to admit the
make available for public inspection all
alien. This date can be ascertained
decisions or final orders in the adjudication of
from the minutes of the proceedings
contested cases. It shall be the duty of the
had before the Board. The operative
records officer of the agency or his equivalent
date of the Board’s action is that
functionary to prepare a register or compilation
when the decision was voted and
of those decisions or final orders for use by the
adopted by them as a Board,
public.
regardless of the date when the decision in extenso was prepared,
•
Decision should state the facts,
written and signed. [Neria v
issues and the law on which the
Commissioner of Immigration
decision was based. [Ang Tibay v
(1968)]
CIR]
•
•
•
The word “noted” on the decision
Government agency decision must
does not constitute an exercise of the
state the facts and the legal basis,
Board of Commissioners’ power of
not merely conclusions of law.
review. A decision by the latter
[Albert v Gangan (2001)]
requires a judicious review and
It is not necessary that the court
deliberation as a body of the
make its own discussion of the
proceedings, the evidence and law
evidence and findings of fact if the
involved, the formulation of findings
court is satisfied with the report of
of fact and conclusions of law.
the examiner which already contains
Absent a reversal, the decision of the
the discussions of the findings and
BSI prevails and becomes final after
conclusions. The rule is otherwise
the lapse of 1 year from the rendition
when the court disagrees with the
of the decision. However, in the case
findings of the examiner in which
of a reversal, notice thereof may be
case the court must specify and
sent even after the lapse of 1 year. [Sichangco v Board of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
176
•
Commissioners of Immigration
relevant in the criminal case.
(1979)]
Notwithstanding the fact that findings in
The power to delegate a particular
criminal cases must be beyond
function can be implied form the
reasonable doubt, they cannot be
power of administrative agencies to
conclusive for administrative purposes.
issue rules and regulations necessary
There are defenses, excuses, and
to carry out its functions. [Realty
attenuating circumstances of value in
Exchange v Sendino (1994)]
admin proceedings that are not admissible in trial of the criminal case
3.
Jurisdiction
which can have a blunting effect on the
•
Administrative agencies may only
conviction. Due process should be
exercise such powers as are explicitly or
upheld. Conviction does not ex proprio
by necessary implication conferred on
vigore justify automatic suspension.
them by law. The jurisdiction over the
[Villanos v Subido (1971)]
subject matter of an administrative
•
•
Acquittal in the criminal case does not
agency depends on the terms of the
carry with it relief from administrative
enabling statute delegating powers to it.
liability. Different standards apply. The
Without jurisdiction, the decision
administrative case may generally
rendered by the tribunal is void.
proceed independently of a criminal
Refer to the enabling statute creating the
action for the same act or omission and
agency especially the powers and
requires only a preponderance of
jurisdictions, as jurisdiction is created
evidence to establish administrative guilt
and conferred by law.
as against proof beyond reasonable doubt of the criminal charge. [Police
4. Administrative and judicial proceedings
Commission v Lood (1980)]
arising from the same facts
Note: Can there be a conviction in a
•
The practice in the Philippines has been
criminal case and an acquittal in the
to allow an administrative proceeding and
administrative case? YES. See Villanos
a judicial proceeding to take place at the
v Subido.
same time so long as the 2 actions are
Note: Can there be an acquittal in a
independent of each other.
criminal case and a conviction in the
•
The difference in the proceeding (one administrative, the other criminal) is not legal incompatibility, but merely physical incompatibility. These two proceedings are independent of each other involving different causes of action and therefore can proceed simultaneously. [(Galang v CA (1961)]
•
The matters that are material in an administrative case are not necessarily
administrative case? YES. See PNR v Domingo. The case of PNR also states that while the accused acquitted of the crime imputed against him may claim payment of back salaries during his suspension or reinstatement in case of dismissal, his relief lies in the proper administrative or civil action prescribed by law (NLRC). The trial court has no jurisdiction to order reinstatement since
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
177 the judgment in a criminal case is limited
on the other. [Ocampo v Office of the
to acquittal or conviction with necessary
Ombudsman (2000)]
•
penalties. However, this case also
The criminal and civil cases are
discusses the doctrine laid down in
altogether different from the
Consigna where reinstatement was
administrative matters such that
granted by the trial court because the
disposition in the first two will not
acquittal was for absolute lack of
inevitably govern the third, and vice
evidence and a concomitant finding that
versa. [Mirales v Go (2001)]
the dismissal was unfair. Whether or not the Consigna doctrine should be seen as an exemption is still a gray area. Some
•
Rules of Evidence •
Apply the specific rules of the
say that it is not to be considered as
administrative agency. In the absence
good law, while others argue that if the
thereof, apply the general rules on
criminal case results in an acquittal due
procedure. However, administrative
to absolute lack of evidence, then the
agencies are not bound by the technical
administrative case must also result in an
rules regarding admission of evidence of
acquittal.
ordinary courts of justice. So long as the
Should a public official or employee be
requirements of due process are
found guilty of violation of election laws
observed. Rationale: to allow
or failure to comply with COMELEC
administrative agencies to act with speed
instructions, orders, or decisions, the
and flexibility.
corresponding proper authority shall,
•
Pervasive principle: Technical rules of
upon COMELEC’s recommendation, take
evidence and procedure do not strictly
appropriate action. Notably, it is the
apply to administrative proceedings, but
executive department to which the
this does not mean that they can
charged official or employee belongs
disregard certain due process
which has ultimate authority to impose
requirements.
the recommended disciplinary action.
•
The rules of evidence in administrative
This respects the general administrative
agencies are more relaxed than in judicial
authoriy of the government department
tribunals, in at least three areas:
concerned over its own personnel. [Tan v COMELEC (1994)]
•
5.
(a)
administrative agencies are not
The dismissal of the criminal case will not
bound by the technical rules of
foreclose administrative action. Considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding
Admissibility: Generally,
admissibility.
(b)
Judicial Notice: Administrative bodies may take into account not only such evidence as may be presented by the parties in the determination of the case. They may also make their inquiry into facts at issue, and take
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
178
(c)
judicial notice of certain other
apply such suitable procedure as shall
matters.
promote the objectives. [Maceda v ERB
Quantum of Evidence: Only
(1991)]
substantial evidence is required to support a decision.
•
When findings of fact of administrative agencies are not conclusive upon the
Ocular inspection is not equivalent to a
courts:
trial or presentation of evidence, as it is
a. When the decision was rendered by
only an auxiliary remedy. Parties are still
an almost evenly divided court and
entitled to hearing. But if the issue can
the division was precisely on the
be resolved through ocular inspection,
facts as borne out by the evidence.
there is no prohibition. [Phil. Movie
[Gonzales v Victory Labor Union
Pictures Workers Assoc v Premier
(1969)]
Productions (1953)]
•
•
b. When the decision was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition or
Administrative agencies may act on their
mistake, other than error of
own and use methods which may best
judgment in estimating the value or
constitute substantial evidence. The
effect of the evidence. [Ortua v
court is not required to examine proof de novo. [Estate of Buan v Pambusco (1956)]
•
The SC is not required to examine proof de novo. The only function of the SC is to determine WON there is evidence before the administrative agency upon which its decision might be reasonably based. [Rizal Light v Municipality of Rizal]. However, evidence received at an administrative investigation conducted with manifest disregard of due process may not justify the conclusion based thereon. [Borja v Moreno].
•
Singson (1934)]
c.
When the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. [Manahan v People (1988)]
d. When the findings are not based on a thorough examination of the parties’ contending claims but merely on their position papers. There is no trial through position papers where the adversarial process would ensure a better presentation and appreciation of the evidence. [PAL v Confessor (1994)] Reconcile with Bantolino case:
The order of testimony is within the
decisions based on position papers
discretion of the court and the exercise of
allowed as expressly permitted by
this discretion in permitting witnesses to
the law.
be introduced out of the order prescribed
e. The SC will intervene only in what
by the rules is not improper. Such a
ought to be the rare instance when
relaxed procedure is especially true in
the standard appears to have been
administrative bodies. In the broad
misapprehended or grossly
interest of justice, the administrative
misapplied. [Universal Camera v
body may, in any particular manner,
NLRC (1951)]
except itself from technical rules and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
179 •
•
Rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before
abuse of discretion –
administrative bodies where decisions
capriciousness, arbitrariness,
may be reached on the basis of position
partiality or hostile attitude.
papers only. [Bantolino v Coca-Cola
Question of Policy: Traditionally,
Bottlers Phils. (2003)]
policymaking is not judicial business.
(d) V.
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions •
Judicial review is an effective mechanism to
authority given to any agency by its enabling
Finality of the administrative decision.
•
check acts which are arbitrary or beyond the
•
Exception: When there is grave
Can the doctrines of forum shopping, litis pendentia and res judicata apply to administrative agencies?
YES. Under Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of
statute.
Court, the certification against forum
A generalization as to when judicial review is
shopping shall state that the party “has
available is hazardous. Here are factors to
not theretofore commenced any action or
consider:
filed any claim involving the same issues
(a) If what is involved is question of
in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
(b)
constitutionality, judicial review is
agency, and to the best of his
available.
knowledge, no such other action or claim
Intention of Congress prevails: If it
(c)
is pending therein…”
History of the statute involved.
Res judicata applies to adversary
wanted judicial review to be available, it
administrative proceedings, because they
would have said so.
are quasi-judicial in nature. [United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union v
Nature of problem involved:
Right (should be protected by law) v
Privilege (can be unilaterally withdrawn).
Laguesma].
consideration not only the cases where
Question of Law v Question of Fact. •
forum shopping can happen, but also
The Court is the final interpreter
those involving the doctrine of primary
of law: It depends on whether or not the finding of fact is supported by substantial
•
jurisdiction.
The doctrine of res judicata, although a
evidence. If yes, it is not
judicial concept, may be applied to
reviewable; otherwise, it is.
administrative agencies performing
If the question is on the
quasi-legislative functions.
substantiality of evidence, then it is a question of law.
Litis pendentia can happen, taking into
However, res judicata does not apply in administrative adjudication relative to
Question of Discretion: When
citizenship, unless the following
discretion is granted by law, the
conditions all obtain: (1) The question of
exercise of such is generally to be
citizenship is resolved by a court or
disturbed by the court.
administrative body as a material issue in
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
180
the controversy after a full-blown
requirement. Thus, failure to comply with the
hearing; (2) with the active participation
reglementary period has the effect or
of the Sol-Gen; and (3) The finding on
rendering final the judgment of the court.
the citizenship issue is affirmed by the
Even administrative decisions must end
SC. [Zita Ngo Burca v Republic]
sometime, as fully as public policy demands
Nor does res judicata apply where the
that finality be written on judicial controversies. Non quieta movere: What
administrative decision gives an award
was already terminated cannot be disturbed.
that is less than what the law provides.
[Antique Sawmill v Zayco (1966)]
[B.F. Goodrich v WCC (1988)].
•
The Courts will not interfere with the decision of the an administrative officer, unless the
A. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative
Court is of the clear opinion that such
Decisions
decision is (a) wrong, (b) manifestly arbitrary
•
and unjust, and (c) not based upon any
When a court reviews an agency’s
reasonable interpretation of the law. [Sotto v
construction, it deals first with the question
Ruiz (1921)]
whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If intent of
•
General rule: Courts refuse to interfere with
Congress is clear, no problem. The court as
proceedings undertaken by administrative
well as the agency must give effect to the
bodies or officials in the exercise of
unambiguous expressed intent of Congress. If
administrative functions.
not, the court does not simply impose its own
Exceptions: administrative proceedings
construction on the statute. If the statute is
may be reviewed by the courts upon a
silent or ambiguous with respect to the issue,
showing that the board or official:
the question for the court is whether the
a. Has gone beyond his statutory authority;
agency’s answer is based on a permissible
b. Exercised unconstitutional powers;
construction of the statute. [Chevron v
c.
Clearly acted arbitrarily and without
Natural Resources Defense Council
regard to his duty, or with grave abuse of
(1984)]
discretion; or
When no one seasonably filed a motion for
d. The decision is vitiated by fraud,
reconsideration, the Office of the President
imposition or mistake. [Manuel v
lost jurisdiction to reopen the case, more so
Villena (1971)]
modify its decision. It thus had no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration. The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments of a court or quasi-judicial body reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. [Fortich v Corona (1998)]
•
•
•
There is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction
Compliance with the period provided by law
and protect substantial rights of parties
for the perfection of an appeal is not merely
affected by its decisions. Judicial review is
mandatory but also a jurisdictional
proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
181 abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or
3. Whether the defendant is the proper
collusion. The court may also declare an
defendant. The defendant could either be a
action or resolution of an administrative
private party, or the very administrative
authority to be illegal because it violates or
agency before whom the right is being
fails to comply with some mandatory
applied.
provision of law, or because it is corrupt,
•
4. Whether the forum is the proper forum. The
arbitrary or capricious. [San Miguel Corp v
forum is usually provided for in the enacting
Secretary of Labor (1975)]
statute, but in its absence, the Uniform
When judicial review is valid despite finality of
Appeals Act should be applicable. It is very
administrative decisions:
seldom that the forum is in the RTC, since
(a) Decision is wrong.
administrative agencies are usually given the
(b) Manifestly arbitrary, capricious, unjust
rank equal to or higher than the RTC.
5. Whether the timing for the filing of the case
decision.
is proper. The period for filing the case must
(c) Decision is not based upon any
also be considered in view of the statue of
reasonable interpretation of law.
limitations, as well as the period required by
(d) Administrative body or officer has gone
the statute or rules for the filing of appeals.
beyond its/his statutory authority.
6. Whether the case is ripe for adjudication.
(e) Administrative agency exercised
When a person has not exhausted all the
unconstitutional powers.
administrative remedies available to him, his
(f) Decision vitiated by fraud, imposition or
case is said to be not ripe for judicial review
mistake.
yet. He is said to have invoked the
(g) Lack of jurisdiction.
intervention of the court prematurely.
(h) Grave abuse of discretion.
Although this is not a jurisdictional
(i) Decision violates or fails to comply with
requirement, failure to abide by the doctrine
some mandatory provision of law. B. Availability of Judicial Review
1. Whether the enabling statute permits judicial review. There is no problem when the statute itself expressly grants or prohibits judicial review. But when it is silent, generally, judicial review is available. Since an administrative agency has a narrower view of the case, and its existence derogates the
affects petitioner’s cause of action. C.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 1.
When the doctrine applies
a. The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function.
b. Judicial review is available. c.
The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction.
•
The regular courts have jurisdiction to
judicial prerogative lodged in the courts by
pass upon the validity or constitutionality
the Constitution, judicial review is needed to
of an administrative rule or regulation
offer these considerations.
issued in the performance of quasi-
2. Whether the plaintiff is the proper plaintiff, that is, whether the plaintiff has standing.
legislative functions. [Smart Communications v NTC (2003)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
182 authority to resolve, or interfere in, a
2. Rationale a.
Legal reason: The law prescribes a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is
procedure.
lodged initially with an administrative body of special competence. [Garcia v
b. Practical reason: To give the agency a
CA (2001)]
chance to correct its own errors [Bernardo v Abalos (2001)] and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts [Lopez v City of
4.
Exceptions
a. Purely legal questions. [Castro v Secretary (2001)]
Manila (1999)].
c.
Reasons of comity: Expedient courtesy,
b. Steps to be taken are merely matters of form. [Pascual v Provincial Board
convenience.
(1959)]
3. General Rule: Where the law has delineated
c.
Administrative remedy not exclusive but
the procedure by which administrative appeal
merely cumulative or concurrent to a
or remedy could be effected, the same should
judicial remedy. [Pascual]
be followed before recourse to judicial action
d. Validity and urgency of judicial action or intervention. [Paat v CA (1997)]
can be initiated. [Pascual v Provincial Board (1959)]
e. No other plain, speedy, adequate remedy
a. If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by
Information Technology Found’n v
giving the administrative officer
COMELEC (2004)]
concerned every opportunity to decide on
f.
Resort to exhaustion will only be
a mater that comes within his
oppressive and patently unreasonable.
jurisdiction, then such remedy should be
[Paat; Cipriano v Marcelino (1972)]
exhausted first before the court’s juridical
g. Where the administrative remedy is only
power can be invoked. Premature
permissive or voluntary and not a
invocation of court’s intervention is fatal
prerequisite to the institution of judicial
to one’s cause of action. [Paat v CA
proceedings. [Corpuz v Cuaderno
(1997)]
(1962)]
b. Courts will not interfere in matters which
h. Application of the doctrine will only cause
are addressed to the sound discretion of
great and irreparable damage which
government agencies entrusted with the
cannot be prevented except by taking the
regulations of activities coming under the
appropriate court action. [Cipriano;
special technical knowledge and training
Paat]
of such agencies. [Lopez v City of
c.
in the ordinary course of the law. [Paat;
i.
When it involves the rule-making or
Manila (1999]
quasi-legislative functions of an
Recourse through court action cannot
administrative agency. [Smart v NTC
prosper until after all such administrative
(2003)]
remedies would have first been exhausted. The doctrine does not warrant
j.
Administrative agency is in estoppel. [Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)]
a court to arrogate unto itself the
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
183 k.
t.
Doctrine of qualified political agency: The
Law expressly provides for a different
act of the department head is
review procedure. [Samahang
presumptively the act of the President
Magbubukid v CA (1999)]
(as his alter ego), unless revoked by the latter. [Estrada v CA (2004); Paat]
•
5. Remedy: Failure to observe doctrine does not
Note: Undersecretary is held to have
affect jurisdiction of the court. The only
acted on behalf (as alter ego) of the
effect of non-compliance is it will deprive
Secretary. [Nazareno v CA]
complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground to dismiss. But if not invoked at the
• Exceptions:
proper time, this ground is deemed waived.
• Where the law expressly provides
[Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)]
for exhaustion via an appeal to the President. [Tan v Director of Forestry]
D. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary Resort
• where the appeal to the Office of
the President was not acted upon despite follow-ups, and in the
1.
When the doctrine applies a.
meantime, the assailed
court
administrative resolution continued
jurisdiction.
to be put in effect. [Ass’n of Phil.
b.
Coconut Authority]
c. d.
n. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction. [Republic v Sandiganbayan]
o. Administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. [Paat]
p. Resort to administrative remedy will amount to a nullification of a claim. [DAR v Apex Investment (2003); Paat]
q. No administrative review provided by law. [Estrada]
r.
Issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies rendered moot. [Estrada]
s.
In quo warranto proceedings. [Garcia]
and
original
The question to be resolved requires The legislative intent on the matter is to The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function.
m. Blatant violation of due process. [Paat; Pagara v CA]
concurrent
have uniformity in rulings.
Subject of controversy is private land in land case proceedings. [Paat]
have
expertise of administrative agency.
Coconut Desiccators v Phil.
l.
The administrative body and the regular
2. General rule: Courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one which requires the expertise of administrative agencies and the legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in the rulings.
It can only occur
where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the administrative agency. It is a question of the court yielding to
the
agency
because
of
the
latter’s
expertise, and does not amount to ouster of the court.
[Texas & Pacific Railway v
Abilene (1907)]
•
It is the recent jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases that demand the special competence of administrative agencies. It
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
184 may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case,
4.
Effect
•
which means that the matter involved is
the
determination of the case requires the
suspension until after the matters within the
expertise,
competence of the administrative agency are
specialized
skills
and
knowledge of the proper administrative bodies
because
technical
matters
•
proceeding
before
of
a
court.
under
•
3.
Exceptions
a. If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction. [Texas]
b. When the issue is not within the competence
administrative
E.
determination.
[Philippine
and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged [Joya v PCGG (1993); Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)] •
The technical rules on standing comes from the general doctrine of separation of powers as there is a need for an actual case or controversy before judicial review
question that does not require specialized
v CA (1995)]
The
1. Meaning: Legal standing means a personal
When the issue involved is clearly a factual
the exercise of primary jurisdiction. [Conrad
an
Standing to Challenge
Global Communications v Relova (1980)]
skills and knowledge for resolution to justify
in
Veterans Bank v CA (2000)]
of the administrative body to act on. [Phil
c.
vested
proceedings are not a continuation of the
agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass
Sison (2004)]
is
determine
less original and exclusive as the judicial
It is presumed that an administrative
committed in its forum [Caballes v
matters
to
court’s jurisdiction in such a case is not any
Enterprises v CA (1990)]
correctly, or correct any previous error
jurisdiction
subject to challenge in the courts.
[Industrial
upon a matter, would decide the same
primary
administrative agency, such determination is
a
within the special competence of an body”.
While
preliminary
regulatory scheme, have been placed administrative
If jurisdiction over a controversy is initially
order. [Viadad v RTC (1993)]
enforcement of the claim requires the which,
its
proceedings, this is in the interest of good
the courts, and comes into play whenever issues
only
for while no prejudicial question arises in civil
The
where a claim is originally cognizable in
of
but
outcome of the administrative proceedings;
doctrine of primary jurisdiction “applies
resolution
case
action on the case before it pending the final
even though the matter is within the jurisdiction
the
competence, the court should suspend its
a
remedy will be supplied by the courts proper
of
lodged with an administrative body of special
then relief must first be obtained in an administrative
dismissal
threshed out and determined. [Industrial]
or
intricate questions of facts are involved,
•
Application of the doctrine does not call for
also judicial in character. However, if the
becomes available. •
Standing as opposed to real party-ininterest: the former is a constitutional law concept which only concerns the
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
185 petitioner, while the latter is a concept in
to suffer a legal injury or wrong from, the
procedural law which concerns both the
administrative action has standing to seek
petitioner/plaintiff
judicial intervention.
and
the
respondent/defendant.
•
The party must have personal and substantial interest.
2.
distinguished from mere incidental interest.
standing
[Joya v PCGG (1993)]
• Philippine law
Interest is: • Personal, - Except: taxpayers; voters; legislators; class suits. • Substantial
American law Challenged action caused injury in fact, economic or otherwise; [Assoc of Data Processing v Camp (1970)] i.e. concrete/particularized and actual/imminent, not conjectural/hypothetical. [Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992)] Interest sought to be protected is arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question [Assoc of Data Processing] Causal connection between the injury and the action complained of: Injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. [Lujan]
Direct injury
Injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. [Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare (1976); Lujan] Petitioner himself be among the injured; i.e. what is alleged is personal stake, not merely a specialized interest. [Sierra Club v Morton (1972)]
3.
When standing given •
“Interest” is material interest, as
Philippine law on standing v American law on
Only the proper party whose legal rights have been adversely affected by, and who stands
The
issue
of
standing
is
a
procedural
technicality which may be waived if the issue is of transcendental importance to the public [Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)]
•
One who is directly affected by, and whose interest is immediate and substantial in, the controversy has the standing to sue. A party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant
an
invocation
of
the
court's
jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers in his behalf. [KMU v Garcia (1994)]
•
Kinds:
a. Taxpayers: A taxpayer’s suit is generally allowed to restrain the government from spending alleged
public funds to
be
for a purpose
illegal.
[Lozada
v
COMELEC (1983)] A taxpayer’s suit is not allowed to compel the spending of public funds. [Occena v COMELEC]
b. Voters: A voter who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. [Lozada] c.
Members of Congress
d. Class suit: The subject matter of a class suit should be one of common and general interest, and the plaintiffs should be numerous and representative enough
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
186 to ensure full protection of all concerned
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
interests. [Oposa v Factoran (1993)]
applies only where the administrative agency
e. Consumers: Consumers can challenge
f.
exercises
areas affecting their interests.
making or quasi-legislative.
Competitors: A competitor has legal
where what is assailed is the validity or
standing to challenge the official action of
constitutionality of a rule or regulation
an administrative agency which favors a
issued by the administrative agency in
competing entity.
the performance of its quasi-legislative
Under
RA
association,
1125, or
a
corporation
Appeals. [Ursal v CTA (1957)]
a.
To prevent courts, thru avoidance of
administrative policies. b.
as to assure that concrete adverseness
To
from
judicial
concrete way or the imminence of the
for illumination of difficult constitutional
effect is demonstrable.
The question as to real
party-in-interest, on the other hand, is
3. Two-fold test for a controversy to be ripe
“whether he is the party who would be
[Abbot]
benefited or injured by the judgment, or
a.
the ‘party’ entitled to the avails of the
Fitness
of
the
issue
for
judicial
decision.
Moreover, standing is an issue
b.
when constitutional issues are involved.
Hardship to the parties of withholding such court action.
[Kilosbayan v Morato (1995)] G. Mootness
Ripeness
VI.
When doctrine applied of
the
administrative
body’s
decision.
b. Judicial review available/appropriate. c.
agencies
formalized and its effect is felt in a
upon which the court so largely depends
Finality
protect
interference until a decision has been
which sharpens the presentation of issues
a.
have same.
themselves in abstract agreement over
stake in the outcome of the controversy
1.
the
premature adjudication, from entangling
The question in standing is “whether such parties have alleged such a personal
F.
However,
courts
upon
rule-
2. Purpose [Abbot Laboratories v Gardner (1967)]
suit.”
regular pass
not
adversely
Collector may appeal to the Court of Tax
questions.”
to
and
[Smart v NTC (2003)]
person,
affected by a decision or ruling of the
•
the
jurisdiction only
function,
or
adjudicatory
When standing not given
•
quasi-judicial
the validity of administrative actions in
function, 4.
its
Administrative agency exercising its rulemaking or quasi-legislative function
•
Modes of Judicial Review Except when the Constitution requires or allows it, judicial review may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses. Thus, the law may provide that a determination made by an administrative
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
187 agency shall be final and irreviewable. In such a
•
case, there is no violation of due process.
•
The Constitution uses the word may, meaning review is not mandatory but only discretionary.
•
However, 2nd paragraph of Sec.1, Art. 8 of the
Classes of methods of obtaining judicial review: (1) Statutory v Non-statutory:
1987 Constitution, which provides that the judicial
•
power includes the power of the courts of justice
Statutory methods are available pursuant to specific statutory provisions.
to determine WON there has been a grave abuse •
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Non-statutory methods are those taken
jurisdiction on the part of any government agency
when there is no express statute granting
or instrumentality, clearly means that judicial
review, and relief is obtained by means of
review of administrative decisions cannot be
the common law remedies or by the
denied the courts when there is an allegation of
prerogative
grave abuse of discretion.
mandamus, habeas corpus, quo warranto
writs
of
certiorari,
or prohibition. •
1987 Consti, Art IX-A, Sec 7. Each Commission
If statutory methods for judicial review
shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members
are
available,
they
are
ordinarily
any case or matter brought before it within 60 days
exclusive, and the use of non-statutory
from the date of its submission for decision or
methods will not likely be permitted. (2) Direct v Collateral:
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted
•
for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
Direct attacks are those which attempt to
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
question in subsequent proceedings the
rules of the Commission or by the Commission
administrative
itself.
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion,
Unless
otherwise
provided
by
this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
each
Commission
may
be
brought
to
action
for
lack
of
etc.
the
•
Collateral
attack
is
when
relief
from
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
administrative
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
proceeding where the primary objective
action
is
sought
in
a
is the grant of a relief other than the
•
There is an underlying power in the courts to
setting aside of the judgment, although
scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies
an attack on the judgment may be
exercising quasi-judicial power on questions of
incidentally involved.
law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by the statute.
Judicial review
•
Judicial review is not trial de novo. It is merely an ascertainment
of
WON
the
findings
of
the
its
administrative agency are consistent with law,
jurisdiction and protects substantial rights of
free from fraud or imposition, and supported by
parties affected by its decisions. Judicial review is
evidence.
keeps
the
administrative
agency
within
proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, grave abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion, or in
Admin Code, Sec 25. Judicial Review. –
case
(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial
the
administrative
decision
is
corrupt,
arbitrary or capricious. [San Miguel Corp. v
review
in
accordance
Labor Secretary (1975)]
applicable laws.
with
this
chapter
and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
188 Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an
an agency decision.
agency decision may seek judicial review. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought against
the
agency,
or
its
officers,
and
•
all
Within 15 days from receipt of a copy of the
indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court.
decision. •
(4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days
When to appeal:
How: File petition for review.
•
Where to file:
from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal,
In the court specified by the statute or, in the
and with the reviewing court a petition for review of
absence thereof, in any court of competent
the order. Copies of the petition shall be served
jurisdiction in accordance with the provision on
upon the agency and all parties of record. The
venue of the Rules of Court.
petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the 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 and shall show, by stating the specific material dates, that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. 15 days from receipt of the final administrative decision. One motion for reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of It
the
decision
9). Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall exercise: (1)
is
reversed
on
reconsideration, the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. (6) 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. (7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency
Original
jurisdiction
to
issue
writs
of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; (2)
(5) The petition for review shall be perfected within
denial.
BP 129, Sec 9 (as amended by RA 7902, Sec.
Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and (3)
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission
and
the
Civil
Service
Commission,
except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the 3rd paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the 4th paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law.
•
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
Who may seek judicial review:
issues raised in cases falling within its original and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
189 appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant
justice whereby the judgment of a court of
and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials
competent
or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be
modified or vacated by any court of equal rank.
continuous and must be completed within 3 months,
Note that there are cases which held that
unless extended by the Chief Justice.
review by the RTC of certain administrative agencies
•
through the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. •
SC
Revised
Administrative
Circular
1-95
1.
a.
but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special
Mentions only one constitutional body – the
Listing is not exclusive since it provides “among these agencies” – ejusdem generis. SC retains the special civil action for certiorari grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Where the law provides for an appeal from the decisions of administrative bodies to the SC or to the CA, it means that such bodies are co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature and, logically,
beyond
the
Review
under this rule is not a matter of right,
and important reasons therefore (Rule
Civil Service Commission.
•
performing
questions of law are raised.
is
of
provision”, it is applicable only when
administrative
Excludes the NLRC by virtue of BP 129 (as
there
agencies
case
Rule 45: Considered as a “gatekeeper
Grants the CA with exclusive jurisdiction to
if
the
Judicial Agencies to the CA).
amended by RA 7902).
•
in
from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-
agencies.
•
that
of appeal is through Rule 43 (Appeals
judicial functions.
•
however,
quasi-judicial functions, the proper mode
quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-
•
Note,
administrative
final orders of resolutions of or authorized by any
19
and
Certiorari to the SC)
appellate jurisdiction over awards, judgments,
of
Immigration
Simple or ordinary, Rule 45 (Appeal by
provides that the Court of Appeals shall have
decisions
opened,
Kinds
Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
review
be
B. Certiorari
(Rule 43, Rules of Court):
•
on
not
and court martials) is valid.
judicial agencies is exclusive, if such is listed in listed, its decisions can be reviewed by the RTC
(Commission
may
Deportation, Laguna Lake Development Authority,
Authority of the CA to review decision of quasi-
the law or if its charter so indicates. If it is not
jurisdiction
control
of
the
latter.
[Philippine Sinter v Cagayan Electric (2002)] This doctrine of non-interference by trial courts with co-equal administrative bodies is intended to ensure judicial stability in the administration of
45, Sec. 6) b.
Special civil action, Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari)
Rule 65, Sec 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is not appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
190 incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
152 2.
Requisites (Rule 65)
not errors of judgment. [Purefoods Corp v
Rule 43
Rule 45
Rule 65
CA has jurisdiction.
SC has jurisdiction.
The SC, CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction.
Based on question of law, of fact or mixed question of law and fact. (Sec 3) This rules applies to appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions (Sec 1). But this does not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code. (Sec 2) Appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the award, judgment or final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, or of the denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration. Upon proper motion & payment of docket fees and before the expiration of the reglementary period, the CA may grant an additional period of 15 days. No further extension may be granted except for the most compelling reason, and in no case shall it exceed 15 days. (Sec 4)
Based only on questions of law. (Sec 1)
Based on question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
This rule applies to appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA, the Sandiganbayan, the RTC or other courts. (Sec 1)
This rule applies only to an order or act of an officer or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and not for judgments. [Republic v CA]
Petition shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution, or of the denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration. On motion with payment of docket fees before the expiration of the reglementary period, the SC may, for justifiable reasons, grant an extension of 30 days. (Sec 2)
Within 60 days.
Award, judgment, final order or resolution not stayed unless the CA directs otherwise. (Sec 12) Parties are the original parties and the court or agency is not impleaded as petitioner or respondent. (Sec 6)
Judgment is stayed.
Order is not stayed unless a preliminary injunction is issued.
Parties are the original parties who thus become appellant and appellee.
Parties are aggrieved party (petitioner) against the administrative agency and the prevailing parties (respondents).
The court exercises appellate jurisdiction.
The court exercises appellate jurisdiction.
a.
Lack
of
jurisdiction
or
grave
abuse
of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Court exercises original jurisdiction. NLRC (1989); Azores v SEC (1996)]
b. Review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
jurisdiction.
does not include a correction of evaluation of
b.
No plain, adequate or speedy remedy.
the evidence but is confined to issues of
c.
Administrative agency performing a quasi-
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
judicial function.
Grave abuse of discretion is committed when the judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical,
3. Purpose: To set aside or nullify proceedings. 4.
When not applicable
a. A petition for certiorari inquires into errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and
arbitrary
or
despotic
manner.
[Villaruel v NLRC (1998)]
c.
It
has
practice
been of
a long-standing the
Court
to
policy
and
respect
the
conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies. They are
highly
specialized
bodies
that
have
necessarily developed an expertise on their
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
153 specific subjects. Thus, the Court adheres to
The rule in this jurisdiction is that certiorari
their findings, unless there is an abuse or
will lie only if there is no appeal or any other
improvident
authority.
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
[Commissioner of Internal Revenue v
ordinary course of law against the acts of
General Foods (2003)]
respondent.
exercise
of
The only question involved in certiorari is 5.
Cases
jurisdiction, either the want or excess thereof,
•
St. Martin Funeral Homes v NLRC (1998)
and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance
There is an underlying power of the courts to
of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only
scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions of
when the same is so grave, as when the
law and jurisdiction even though no right of
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
review is given by statute. The remedy of a
manner by reason of passion, prejudice or
party is to file a motion for reconsideration at
personal hostility, and it must be so patent
the administrative level, then avail of a
and so gross as to amount to an evasion of
special civil action for certiorari under Rule
positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to
65. In the case of NLRC decisions, the intent
perform a duty enjoined, or to act at all, in
of the legislature was to make a special civil
contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to
action for certiorari as the proper vehicle for
having acted without jurisdiction.
review.
Thus, all references in the law to
emphatically be reiterated, since so often is it
“appeals” from the NLRC to the SC must be
overlooked, that the special civil action for
interpreted to mean petitions for certiorari
certiorari
under Rule 65.
All such petitions must
correction of errors of jurisdiction and not
initially be filed in the CA following the
errors of judgment. The reason for the rule is
hierarchy of courts.
simple.
Police Commission v Bello (1971)
jurisdiction, an error committed while so
While
administrative
engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction
bodies are entitled to great weight and should
being exercised when the error is committed.
not generally be disturbed, there is grave
If it did, every error committed by a court
abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of
would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every
the writ of certiorari when there is such
erroneous
judgment
capricious
This
•
findings
judgment
of
and as
is
facts
of
whimsical equivalent
a
When
remedy
a
designed
court
be
a
its
void
of
judgment.
to
of
administration of justice would not survive
lack
rule.
Consequently,
allowed. an
The
jurisdiction as where the power is exercised
such
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
judgment that the court may commit in the
of passion, prejudice or personal hostility
exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible
amounting to an evasion of positive duty, or
through the original civil action of certiorari. •
a
be
the
exercises
would
cannot
for
exercise
to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
•
is
It must
error
of
Meralco Securities Industrial v Central
enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of
Board of Assessment Appeals (1982)
law.
Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court
Purefoods Corp v NLRC (1989)
to
an
inferior
court,
board
or
officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions whereby the record of a particular case is
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
154 ordered
to
be
elevated
for
review
and
correction in matters of law. •
Cruz v Gangan (2003) Findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected, so long as they are supported
by
substantial
evidence;
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
but
lacking such support, the factual finding
1.
Requisites a.
cannot stand on its own and is therefore not
discretion.
binding on the Court. •
De
Leon
v
Heirs
Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
of
Gregorio
b.
Reyes
No plain, adequate and speedy remedy. Petitioner
must
first
exhaust
all
(1987)
If all administrative decisions were conclusive
administrative remedies, as prohibition is
upon the Court in any event, there would
available only when there are no other
have been no reason at all to offer the
plain, speedy and adequate remedies in
extraordinary remedy of certiorari to litigants
the ordinary course of law. [Cabedo v
who otherwise would have been deprived of
Director of Lands (1961)]
c.
this only and last resort to the courts of
Agency
performs
quasi-judicial
and/or
ministerial functions.
justice. This remedy applies to administrative decisions up to the highest level and includes even a decision rendered "by authority of the
2. Purpose: To prohibit or stop a proceeding.
President." That sacramental phrase does not remove
a
decision
from
the
A preventive remedy – thus, not for acts
certiorari
already
jurisdiction of the Court or inhibit us from
If
fait
accompli,
prohibition can no longer be filed.
reversing them when warranted by a clear
Exception: prohibition can restrain an act
showing of a grave abuse of discretion.
which is already a fait accompli if such act
C.
performed.
Prohibition
is
patently
illegal
and
unconstitutional, and it creates a mischief and dangerous precedent whereby those
Rule 65, Sec 2: Petition for prohibition. – When the proceeding of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceeding in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
in the corridors of power could avoid judicial intervention and review by merely speedily and stealthily completing the commission
of
an
illegality
[Tan
v
COMELEC (1986)] 3.
When not applicable
a. Prohibition does not lie against legislative functions.
[Ruperto
v
Torres
(Unreported)]
b. Prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done, and not intended to provide a
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
155
c.
remedy for an act already accomplished.
based
[Simon, Jr. v CHR (1994)]
required to justify judicial intervention
Prohibition is granted only where no
before the termination of the deportation
other
proceedings, the judgment reached by
remedy,
which
is
sufficient,
is
another and complete remedy at law is
suffering
generally
substantial legal error.
sufficient
reason
for
Hiong
General rule
v
Deportation
Board
is that
the
Deportation
Board has original jurisdiction to resolve the issue of citizenship. citizenship
will
not
Mere claim of
divest
it
of
its
jurisdiction. Exception is when there is substantial or conclusive proof to support the claim of citizenship, in which case the court, using its sound discretion, may allow intervention. effect
of
prohibition
granting
is
to
the
writ
suspend
of the
resolution of the issue of the citizenship in the judicial proceeding.
1.
Co v Deportation Board (1977) When
the
evidence
submitted
by
a
respondent in deportation proceedings is conclusive of his citizenship, his right to immediate review should be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. Question of alienage should be decided first in a judicial
the
termed
corrosion
as of
The petitioner shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
administrative proceeding pending the
•
from
be
Rule 65, Sec 3. Petition for mandamus. – When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.
(1955)
The
may
evidence
D. Mandamus
Cases Chua
court
of
[Paredes v CA
(1996)]
•
quantum
the
a
lower
the
available to afford redress. That there is
dismissing the writ.
4.
on
proceeding,
administrative determination
suspending
proceedings. is
allowable
the
Judicial when
the
courts themselves believe that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. The question is whether,
Requisites a.
Public officer or agency has a positive duty that is ministerial. Exception: Mandamus will lie against a discretionary duty when the official or agency refuses to exercise the duty itself. Discretion means the power or right conferred upon the office by law of acting officially
under
certain
circumstances
according to the dictates of his judgment and conscience
and
not
controlled
by
the
judgment of conscience of others. [Meralco v Savellano (1982)] A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
156 given state of facts, in a prescribed manner,
court.
in obedience to the mandate of a legal
public officer, and gives him the right to
authority, without regard to or the exercise of
decide
his own judgment upon the propriety or
performed, such duty is discretionary and not
impropriety of the act done. [Meralco]
ministerial. [Blanco v Board of Examiners
Duty to ascertain facts is discretionary.
(1924)]
Duty
to
act
after
the
facts
have
been
ascertained is ministerial. [Tan v Veterans Backpay Commission (1959)] b.
how or when the duty shall be
Exceptions:
When
mandamus
lies
to
compel performance of discretionary duties.
a. There is grave abuse of discretion
Right of petitioner is clear and controlling.
where the actuations are tantamount to
Mandamus can be availed of only by the
a willful refusal to perform a duty
party who has a direct legal interest in the
specifically required by law.
right sought to be enforced.
b. Where such discretion of the court can
Exception: If the question is one of public
be legally exercised in only one way
right and the object of mandamus is to
and it refuses to act, mandamus will lie
procure the performance of a public duty, it is
to compel the court to exercise it.
sufficient to show that the petitioner is a
[People v Orias]
citizen even if he has not special interest in c.
If the law imposes a duty upon a
c.
To
prevent
a
failure
of
justice
or
the result. [Tañada v Tuvera (1985)]
irreparable injury where there is a clear
No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
legal right and there is an absence of
Mandamus is premature if there are
any adequate remedy; where there is
administrative
no appeal; or when such remedy of
petitioner.
remedies [Perez
v
available City
to
Mayor
the of
Cabanatuan (1961)]
appeal is inadequate. [Orias]
d. To prevent an abuse of discretion or to
Exception: Where the case involves only
correct an arbitrary action which does
legal questions, the litigant need not exhaust
not amount to exercise of discretion.
all administrative remedies before mandamus
[Orias]
can be sought. [Español v The Chairman of
e. Where there has been grave abuse of
the PVA (1985)]
discretion,
manifest
injustice,
or
palpable excess of authority, in which
2. Purpose: To compel a party to perform an act
case the respondent can be ordered to
arising out of a positive duty enjoined by law.
act in a particular manner, especially where a constitutional right has been
3.
When not applicable
violated.
a. The writ of mandamus will not issue to
(1987)]
control or review the exercise of discretion of
f.
Privilege
[Kant
is
Wong
distinguishable
v
PCGG
from
a
a public officer. Where the law imposes upon
matter
a public officer the right and duty to exercise
demandable if denied. The courts may
judgment, reference to any matter to which
not grant the writ of mandamus to
he is called upon to act, it is his judgment
secure said privilege.
that is to be exercised and not that of the
Guzman (2004)]
of
right,
the
latter
being
[PRC v De
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
157 b. Mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance
petition shall be filed not later than 60 days from the notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
of a visa. Issuance of a visa is not a mater of course
since
it
involves
the
exercise
of
discretion on the part of the consular officer as to the question if the entry of the applicant would be contrary to public safety. [Ng Gioc
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court Appeals.
Liu v Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1950)]
c.
Mandamus will lie only to compel the board or officer to take some action when it refuses to BUT will not attempt to prescribe the action to be taken and thereby control the discretion or
judgment
of
the
board
or
officer.
[Policarpio v Phil Veterans Board (1956)]
d. Mandamus does not lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct. In these cases, the proper
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. (As amended by A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC, September 1, 2000)
remedy is specific performance. [Province of Pangasinan v Reparations Commission (1977)]
e. While mandamus lies to compel a court to give due course to the appeal which it has
5.
erroneously dismissed, mandamus will not lie
•
to compel a court to dismiss the appeal as
showing that the officer, board, or official
dismiss as an error in the course of the
concerned has a clear legal duty not involving
appeal. [Lapisan v Alfonso]
discretion. Moreover, there must be statutory authority for the performance of the act, and
When and where filed
•
PRC v De Guzman (2004) For mandamus to prosper, there must be a
the remedy is to assign such failure to
4.
Cases
the
performance
of
the
duty
has
been
Old rule: Although Rule 65 does not specify
refused. The function of mandamus is not to
any period for the filing of a petition for
establish a right but to enforce one that has
certiorari
must,
been established by law. If no legal right has
nevertheless, be filed within a reasonable
been violated, there can be no application of
time.
In certiorari cases, such reasonable
a legal remedy, and the writ of mandamus is
time is within 3 months from the commission
a legal remedy for a legal right. There must
of the complained act. The same rule should
be a well-defined, clear and certain legal right
apply to mandamus cases. [Cruz v CA
to the thing demanded.
and
mandamus,
it
(1996)]
•
New rule:
Rule 65, Sec 4, Revised Rules of Court: When and where petition filed. – The
E.
Declaratory Relief
Rule 63, Sec 1. Who may file petition. – Any person interested under a deed, will,
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
158 f.
contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.
[Mirando], where all administrative remedies have been exhausted. [Tolentino v Board of Accountancy]
g. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding. [Ollada v Central Bank (1962)]
2. Purpose: To determine the construction, validity and declaration of rights thereunder. •
•
Contro4ersy must be ripe for adjudication
Note:
Prof. Avena says that while the (1)
Note: An action for declaratory relief must be
determination of any question of validity or
brought in the RTC. It is not among the actions
construction and (2) declaration of rights
within the original jurisdiction of the SC even if
apply to statutes, executive orders, etc.,
only questions of law are involved. [Remotigue v
validity/construction does not apply to cases
Osmeña (1967); Rural Bank of Olongapo v
involving
Commissioner of Land Registration (1981)].
written instruments.
However,
if
the
petition
has
deeds,
will,
contracts
or
other
far-reaching
implications and it raises questions that should be resolved, it may be treated as one for prohibition
3.
When not applied
a. In
securing
a
judicial
declaration
of
[De la Llana v Alba (1982)] or for mandamus.
citizenship. [(Azajar v Ardalles (1955)]
[Alliance of Government Workers v Minister
b. Where petition for declaratory relief is filed
of Labor and Employment (1983)]
after the breach of law took place.
[De
Borja v Villadolid (1949)] 1.
Requisites a.
c.
Subject matter must be a deed, will, contract
proper procedure is for the tax to be paid first
or written instrument in which petitioner is
and
legally interested, or law or governmental
[National Dental Supply v Meer (1951)]
regulation which affects his rights.
to
sue
for
its
recovery
afterwards.
d. Where petitioner never acquired any interest
b. The terms of the written instrument are, or
in the object of the controversy, and enjoyed
the validity of the law or regulation is,
no rights which were violated. [Mirando]
doubtful and requires judicial construction.
e. Where declaratory relief would not terminate
[Santos v Aquino]
c.
Where a taxpayer questions his liability; the
the uncertainty of controversy.
Petition is filed before breach or violation of
f.
Where
the
relief
sought
would
be
the instrument or regulation. [Reparations
determinative
Commission v Northern Lines (1970)]
construction of definite stated rights, status
d. There
must
be
an
actual
of
issues
rather
than
a
justiciable
and other relations commonly expressed in
controversy between persons with adverse
written instruments – since this remedy is
interests. [Mirando v Wellington (1978)]
available only if it is limited to a declaration of
e. Petitioner must have legal interest in the
rights, and not to a determination, trial or
controversy. [Mirando]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
159 judicial investigation of issues. [Kawasaki v
functus officio and the alien is being held
Amores (1991)]
without authority of law. •
F.
Co v Deportation Board (1977)
Habeas Corpus
Bail renders a writ of habeas corpus moot and academic, as the bail bond gives petitioner liberty.
Rule 102, Sec 1. To what habeas corpus extends. – Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all case of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
Note, however, that in Criminal Procedure, a writ of habeas corpus may still issue despite the granting of bail when there is still effective detention. •
Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag (1989) The release of a detained person, whether
1. Nature: The great writ of liberty is intended as a
permanent or temporary, renders a petition
speedy remedy to secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty.
for the writ of habeas corpus moot and
A person detained upon
academic,
the orders of an agency may test the validity of his detention through the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus,
which
is
a
constitutionally
guaranteed right. 2.
There is illegal confinement or detention.
b.
There is illegal restraint of liberty.
c.
Rightful custody of any person is withheld
there
are
restraints
G. Injunction as provisional remedy
Rule 58, Sec 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. – A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular acts or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
Requisites a.
unless
attached which precludes his freedom.
from the person entitled thereto.
3. Purpose: Secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty, and test the validity of detention as
1. Nature: An ancillary remedy provided to preserve the
ordered by an agency.
petitioner’s
rights
while
main
action
is
pending. 4.
Cases •
Mejoff v Director of Prisons (1951)
2.
Purpose:
a. Prevent the commission of certain acts
The writ of habeas corpus will issue when:
complained of; or
a. An alien has been detained by the DOJ
b. Order the continued performance of some act
for an unreasonably long period of time
for the purpose of preventing further injury.
after it has become apparent that the deportation order cannot be effectuated; 3.
and
b. No criminal charges have been formally made or a judicial order issued for his detention.
In such case, the order of
deportation which was not executed is
Requisites:
a. Plaintiff is entitled to relief demanded. b.
Commission
or
continuance
of
an
act
complained of would probably work injustice to him.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
160 c.
Defendant, is doing, threatens or about to do
such other questions such as state immunity
an act in violation of petitioner’s rights which
from suit and the applicable statutes.
•
may render the judgment ineffective.
A
quasi-judicial
officer
is
usually
immunity from liability to persons who may
an inferior body; if co-equals, the injunction
be injured as a result of an erroneous or
cannot
mistaken decision, provided that the acts
prosper.
[Honda
v
San
Diego
(1966)]
complained of were done under the color of authority and in good faith.
4.
Types a. b.
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff
d.
VII.
Extent of Judicial Review
Preliminary Injunction – To prevent or stop •
defendant from doing something c.
Generally,
laws
creating
administrative
Restraining Order – Life span of 20 days,
agencies and providing for judicial review
after which hearing is then held to decide
may
propriety of the injunction.
Whether
Permanent Injunction – If plaintiff wins the
questions of law, of fact or of both as well as
case,
of administrative discretion will depend on the
injunction
becomes
permanent
(otherwise, the writ is dissolved).
indicate the
the
scope
courts
of
may
that
review.
inquire
into
enabling act. •
Cases •
[Philippine
Racing Club v Bonifacio (1960)]
wants to compel defendant to do something.
5.
given
d. Injunction can only be issued by superior to
General rules: 1.
Collector vs. Reyes (1957)
Questions of law are always reviewable by the courts;
The general rule is that injunction cannot be
2.
Substantial Evidence Rule: Findings of
issued in tax collection. An exception is that if
fact, if based on substantial evidence, are
the collection of the tax is prejudicial to the
conclusive and binding on the courts;
interest
of
the
government
and
of
the
3.
If the decision of a case is discretionary
taxpayer, CTA is authorized to restrain the
on the part of the agency, courts can
Collector from proceeding with its collection.
review if the decision is attended with capriciousness; and
•
Lemi vs. Valencia (1966)
4.
Questions
of
jurisdiction
are
always
The right to the writ is clear when: 1) there is
reviewable as they go into the question
willful invasion of the petitioner’s right, and
of authority to decide.
the injury is a continuing one; and 2) effect of the writ is to re-establish the pre-existing relation.
A. The Law-Fact Distinction •
There is no clear-cut line that separates questions of law from questions of fact.
H. Suit for damages (indirect method) •
There may be cases where the issues raised
Parties aggrieved by some agency action may
may easily be classified under one or the
be able to obtain judicial review in an action
other, but some cases may involve mixed
for damages brought against the agency or
questions of law and fact.
its officials.
Whether or not the action will
prosper will depend on the determination of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
161 •
The problem with these shady areas is that they
are
usually
dependent
on
considering the less specialized nature of their jurisdiction.
the
predilection of the judge reviewing the case.
•
A party challenging an administrative action
If he is inclined to review it, he will treat it as
may direct his attack against the:
a question of law; otherwise, he will waive it
1.
off as a question of fact.
As a reviewing
the agency and granting its powers;
judge though, he must ascertain whether the
2.
agency’s decision is supported by substantial
•
agency’s
An administrative official’s action which is
dependent upon a question of law as to be in
corrected and is not conclusive upon the
substance and effect a decision on the latter,
courts. [Ortua v Singson (1934)]
•
When
the
conclusion
drawn
by
an
question, examine the entire record including
administrative official from the facts found is
the evidence if necessary.
erroneous or not warranted by law, it is a
If the reviewing court is convinced that
question
the
court
may
confirm
findings.
of
law
reserved
to
the
court’s
determination. [Mejia vs. Mapa (1954)]
•
Judicial review is proper where the act of the
Otherwise, it should review.
[Donato v.
administrative official constitutes not only an
Philippine
Association
excess of regulatory power conferred upon
Marine
Officer
him, but also an exercise of legislative power
(1959)]
which he does not have. [People v Santos
The conclusion drawn from facts is a question of law, which the courts may review. [Dauan v Secretary (1959)]
(1936)]
•
reviewable by the court. [Reyes Vda. De Santiago v Reyes (1960)]
The interpretation of articles of incorporation, which
Whether a question of fact overcomes a
involves
a
question
reviewable by the courts.
presumption of law, is a question of law
•
the
based on a misconstruction of law can be
ruling,
•
of
interpretation and application of the law.
substantial evidence supports the agency’s
•
Correctness
question of fact is so involved with and
the court will, in order to decide the legal
•
3.
Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts: Where what purports to be a finding upon a
Validity of the agency action if this transcend the limit established by law; or
evidence for him to do the waiving-off act.
•
Constitutionality of the statute creating
of
law,
is
[Japanese War
Notes Claimants vs. SEC (1957)]
•
The issue of WON an ER-EE relationship exists is a question of law.
[Ysmael v CIR
Non-controversion of a claim for workmen’s
(1960)]
compensation simply means an admission of
Note: There is an alternative view saying
facts
that the question of WON there is an EER is a
and
not
an
admission
of
a
legal
conclusion. [Aboitiz v Pepito (1966)]
mixed question of fact and law, because the court has to examine the facts vis-à-vis the
B. Question of Law •
General rule: Questions of law are subject to judicial review, since the courts are generally more competent to resolve these issues
four-fold test.
•
Inferences
and
findings
of
fact
of
administrative agencies are to be accepted, unless they are irrational or unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
162 whole.
[O’Leary v Brown-Pacific-Maxon
the evidence, must consider evidence not
(1951)]
only in its quantitative but also in its qualitative aspects. For, to be substantial,
C.
Question of Fact
evidence must first of all be credible.
•
A question of fact exists if the issue
[Gonzales
involved is:
(1969)]
•
•
Labor
Union
WON a certain thing exists;
2.
WON an event has taken place; or
question without regard to technicalities.
3.
Which of the two versions of the
General rule: Because of the expertise
happening of an event is correct.
which an administrative agency has, its
Finality is attached to findings of fact of
findings of facts which are supported by
some agencies when these findings are
substantial evidence are accorded by the
supported by substantial evidence.
A quasi-judicial body can determine any
This
courts with conclusiveness, as long as
is but a recognition of the expertise of
there was no grave abuse of discretion.
the agency as to questions in matters
[Suarnaba v WCC (1978)]
regulation or decision.
•
But the courts
Only errors of law, and not rulings on the weight of the evidence, are reviewable by
have the power to review the findings of
the courts.
fact when the evidence on record is not
Customs vs. MERALCO (1977)]
substantial, and whether or not such is substantial is for the court to say.
•
[Acting Commissioner of
Administrative
and
discretionary
functions may not be interfered with by
It is not for the reviewing court to weigh
the courts. This is generally true with
the conflicting evidence, determine the
respect to acts involving the exercise of
credibility
otherwise
judgment or discretion and findings of
substitute its judgment for that of the
fact. But when there is grave abuse of
administrative agency on the sufficiency
discretion
of evidence. The court recognizes that
jurisdiction, there is a justification for the
the trial court or administrative body, as
courts to set aside the administrative
a trier of facts, is in a better position to
determination.
assess the demeanor of the witnesses
Central Bank (1991)]
of
witnesses,
or
and the credibility of their testimonies as they were within its proximal view during the hearing or investigation. [Mollaneda v Umacob (2001)]
•
Victory
1.
which have been entrusted to them for
•
v
One circumstance where the court may
•
The
amounting
court
findings
[Banco
is
of
inclined
fact
official if they thorough
of are
claims,
lack
of
Filipino
to
an
review
v
the
administrative
not
examination
contending
to
based
of
the
on a parties’
wherein
the
not accept the agency’s findings of fact is
adversarial process would ensure a better
when the decision rendered by an almost
presentation
evenly divided court and the division was
evidence. [PAL v. Confessor (1994)]
and
appreciation
precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence. In such a situation the court, in order to determine the substantiality of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
of
163 •
In
administrative
proceedings,
proof
or
quasi-judicial
beyond
reasonable
doubt or preponderance of evidence is not required as a basis for a judgment, substantial
evidence
being
sufficient.
[Meralco v. NLRC (1991)]
•
In
administrative
proceedings,
the
complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderance of evidence as in an ordinary civil case.
1. Discretionary acts v Ministerial acts Discretionary
Ministerial
When applied to public functionaries, discretion may be defined as the power or right conferred upon them by law to act officially under certain circumstances, according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience and not controlled by the judgment of others.
A ministerial act has been defined as one performed in response to a duty which has been positively imposed by law and its performance required at a time and in a manner or upon conditions specifically designated, the duty to perform under the conditions specified not being dependent upon the officer’s judgment or discretion.
Discretion is the power to make a choice among permissive actions or policies. The very essence of discretionary power is that the person or persons exercising it may choose which of several courses of action should be followed.
Ministerial duty is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion. It is a simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law.
Rather, it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind
might
accept
as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. [Tapiador v Office of the Ombudsman (2002)]
•
Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule.
A
finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge.
This
is
different
from
the
quantum of proof required in criminal proceedings which necessitates a finding of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
Judicial review of administrative discretion v Substitution
case
administrative discretion
will
not
foreclose
administrative
action against respondent. [Velasquez v Hernandez (2004)]
•
2.
doubt. Ergo, the dismissal of the criminal
•
of
judicial
discretion
for
Questions of policy or discretion are reviewable
only
The substantial evidence standard is not
unreasonableness,
departure
modified in any way when officials of an
statutory
administrative agency disagree in their
evidentiary support; and questions of
findings.
wisdom, propriety or expediency are
[Universal Camera v NLRC
(1951)]
or
from
lack
of
for the agency and not for the courts. The
D. Question of Discretion
standards,
for
court
will
not
substitute
its
discretion or judgment for that of the administrative
agency,
but
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
will
164 determine
the
action.
lawfulness
The
of
ruling
of
its an
administrative agency, on questions of law, while not as conclusive as its findings
of
facts,
is
1. When it applies
•
The doctrine of res judicata applies only
nevertheless
to
judicial
or
quasi-judicial
proceedings and not to the exercise
persuasive and given much weight
of purely administrative functions.
especially if the agency is one of
Administrative proceedings are non-
special competence and experience.
litigious and
summary
in nature;
hence, res judicata does not apply.
3. General rule: In the exercise of discretion lawfully
[Nasipit
given, the court will not interfere.
Lumber
Co.
v
NLRC
(1989)]
Rationale: Recognition of the expertise of the agency.
2. Cases
Exception: capricious,
If discretion was exercised in a whimsical,
arbitrary,
•
abusive,
Ipekdijan Merchandising v CTA (1963)
partial, and hostile manner.
To
say that
the
doctrine
applies
exclusively to court decisions would 4.
Cases •
•
be to unreasonably circumscribe the
Laguna Tayabas v PSC (1957)
scope thereof. The more equitable
The erroneous appreciation of the significance
attitude is to allow extension of the
of the facts before the administrative agency
defense to decisions of bodies upon
does not mean that the administrative agency
whom
had abused its discretion.
conferred, so long as their decisions
PLDT v NTC (1995) Courts
should
intervene
in
that
are: 1)
fraud, personal malice or wanton oppression. economic
none
or
of
financial
the
technical
competence
2)
which
3)
habiliments
of
artfully,
a
"question
of
interpretation."
in
It must be a judgment on the merits; and
core technical and economic in nature but less
It must have been rendered by a subject matter and the parties;
of intervening in matters which are at their or
The former judgment must be
court having jurisdiction over the
their disposal, and in particular must be wary
more
been
final;
and
specialized administrative agencies have at
disguised,
have
essential requisites of res judicata
clear showing of serious violation of law or of have
powers
meet the doctrine’s requisites. The
not
administrative process, save upon a very
Courts
judicial
4)
There must be identity of parties,
the
subject
legal
action. •
Dulay
v
matter Minister
and of
cause
of
Natural
Resources (1993)
VIII.
Enforcement of Agency Action
Decisions
and
administrative A. Res Judicata; Finality of Judgment
pursuant
to
orders
bodies their
of
rendered
quasi-judicial
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
165 authority have, upon their finality, the
force
and
effect
of
a
final
judgment within the purview of the
•
otherwise
provides.
[GSIS
v
CSC
(1991)] •
The legislature may aid the enforcement of
doctrine of res judicata, which forbids
administrative determination by providing a
the
penalty for failure to comply therewith. Also,
reopening
of
matters
once
judicially determined by competent
direct
authorities.
subpoena power and contempt powers) are
MERALCO
v
Phil
Consumers
and
positive
sanctions
(grant
of
afforded by provisions for administrative or
Foundation (2002)
judicial processes to compel obedience or
For purposes of res juridicata, a
prevent violation of the determination.
judgment is on the merits when it
•
Administrative functions:
determines the rights and liabilities
•
Administrative enforcement includes:
of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections. Moreover, res juridicata is not defeated by a minor difference of parties, as it does not require absolute but only substantial
Adjudicative function Rule-making function Executive function
Enforce decision.
Dispensing government largess
Dole out or withhold.
Promulgate rules. Issue or withhold license.
identity of parties. With respect to
Focusing on public opinion;
identity of causes of action, this
Revocation;
agencies
Suspension;
performing quasi-judicial functions have the
Refusal to renew license;
implied power to issue writs of execution.
Refusal to grant clearance paper to ships;
Exception: If the enabling law expressly
Withholding or denying benefits;
provides otherwise.
Imposing conditions seizure and sale or
requisite is present whenever parties are litigating for the same thing and for the same contentions. B. Writ of Execution; Mandamus •
General
rule:
Administrative
destruction of property;
If the law is silent, presume that the agency has the power to enforce its
Exclusion and deportation;
decisions
Imposition and collection of fines and
judicial
emanating powers.
from
its
quasi-
v
Hizon
[Apolega
(1968)]
The authority to decide cases (quasijudicial
penalties; and
power)
should
normally
and
Summary enforcement without need for adjudication: •
Distraint of personal property or levy
logically begin to include the grant of
on real property (Commissioner of
authority to enforce and execute the
Internal Revenue);
judgment
it
renders,
unless
the
law
•
Abatement of nuisance (Secretary of Health); and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
166 •
Sequestration
of
ill-gotten
wealth
If officials refuse to implement a final and
The
executory
concerning
judgment,
mandamus.
[Vda.
the De
remedy
Corpuz
v
is The
Commanding General of the Philippine
in
the
dispositive
part
of
the
decision. Where the order of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the order pro tanto has no validity. [Clavano v HLURB (2002)]
or
practice
term
includes the
memoranda internal
or
statements
administration
or
or procedure available to, the public. 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. formulation, amendment, or repeal of a rule. (5) "Contested case" means any proceeding, including licensing, in which the legal rights, duties or
APPENDIX BOOK VII: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
privileges asserted by specific parties as required by the Constitution or by law are to be determined after hearing.
Chapter 1
(6) "Person" includes an individual, partnership,
GENERAL PROVISIONS 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. (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, adjudicate to
cases; licensing
research
institutions
functions;
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.
Sec. 2. Definitions. - As used in this Book:
respect
in,
(4) "Rule making" means an agency process for the
-END-
and
procedures
(3) "Rate" means any charge to the public for a
Execution must conform to that ordained or decreed
the
management of an agency not affecting the rights of,
Army (1978)]
•
describes
requirements of, an agency, including its regulations.
(PCGG);
•
and
with
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
(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.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
167 (11) "Licensing" includes agency process involving
Sec. 4. Effectivity. - In addition to other rule-making
the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension,
requirements provided by law not inconsistent with
annulment,
this Book, each rule shall become effective 15 days
withdrawal,
limitation,
amendment,
modification or conditioning of a license.
from the date of filing as above provided unless a
(12) "Sanction" includes the whole or part of a
different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule
prohibition, limitation or other condition affecting the
in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety
liberty of any person; the withholding of relief; the
and
imposition of penalty or fine; the destruction, taking,
expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The
seizure or withholding of property; the assessment of
agency shall take appropriate measures to make
damages, reimbursement, restitution, compensation,
emergency rules known to persons who may be
cost, charges or fees; the revocation or suspension of
affected by them.
license;
Sec. 5. Publication and Recording. - The University of
or
the
taking
of
other
compulsory
or
restrictive action. of
privilege,
money,
the
existence
of
which
must
be
the Philippines Law Center shall:
(13) "Relief" includes the whole or part of any grant
welfare,
assistance,
exemption,
license,
exception,
or
authority,
(1) Publish a quarter bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it during the preceding quarter; and
remedy;
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus
recognition of any claim, right, immunity, privilege,
published and remaining in effect, together with a
exemption or exception; or taking of any action upon
complete index and appropriate tables.
the application or petition of any person.
Sec. 6. Omission of Some Rules. - (1) The University
(14) "Agency proceeding" means any agency
of the Philippines Law Center may omit from the
process with respect to rule-making, adjudication and
bulletin or the codification any rule if its publication
licensing.
would be unduly cumbersome, expensive or otherwise
(15) "Agency action" includes the whole or part of
inexpedient, but copies of that rule shall be made
every agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief or its
available on application to the agency which adopted
equivalent or denial thereof.
it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and new
Chapter 2
copies thereof may be obtained.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining
Sec. 3. Filing. - (1) Every agency shall file with the
an act which, pursuant to law, is punishable as a
University of the Philippines Law Center 3 certified
crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be
copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on
published in full text.
the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed
Sec. 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. -
within 3 months from that date shall not thereafter be
The University of the Philippines Law Center shall
the basis of any sanction against any party or
furnish 1 free copy each of every issue of the bulletin
persons.
and of the codified rules or supplements to the Office
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent
functionary,
shall
carry
out
of the President, Congress, all appellate courts and
the
the National Library. The bulletin and the codified
requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary
rules shall be made available free of charge to such
action.
public officers or agencies as the Congress may
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public
select, and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs.
inspection.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
168 Sec. 8. Judicial Notice. - The court shall take judicial
the original is in the official custody of a public officer,
notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as
a certified copy thereof may be accepted.
published in the bulletin or the codified rules.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-
Sec. 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise
examine witnesses presented against him and to
required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable,
submit rebuttal evidence.
publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially
afford interested parties the opportunity to submit
cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical
their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. The
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall
parties shall be notified and afforded an opportunity
be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been
to contest the facts so noticed.
published in a newspaper of general circulation at
Sec. 13. Subpoena. - In any contested case, the
least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon.
agency
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases
shall
be
observed.
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
Chapter 3
upon showing of general relevance. Unless otherwise
ADJUDICATION
provided
Sec. 10. Compromise and Arbitration. - To expedite
disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial
administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights
Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case
or claims and obviate expensive litigations, every
being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or
agency
refusal as contempt.
shall,
in
the
public
interest,
encourage
by
law,
the
agency
may,
in
case
of
amicable settlement, comprise and arbitration.
Sec. 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the
Sec. 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. - (1)
agency in a contested case shall be in writing and
In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to
shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
notice and hearing. The notice shall be served at least
on which it is based. The agency shall decide each
5 days before the date of the hearing and shall state
case within 30 days following its submission. The
the date, time and place of the hearing.
parties shall be notified of the decision personally or
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to
by registered mail addressed to their counsel of
present evidence and argument on all issues. If not
record, if any, or to them.
precluded by law, informal disposition may be made
Sec. 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency
of
shall become final and executory 15 days after the
any
contested
case
by
stipulation,
agreed
settlement or default. (3) The agency shall keep an official record of its
receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative
proceedings.
appeal
Sec. 12. Rules of Evidence. - In a contested case:
perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be
(1) The agency may admit and give probative
or
judicial
review,
if
proper,
has
been
filed, which shall suspend the running of the said
value to evidence commonly accepted by reasonably
period.
prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.
Sec. 16. Publication and Compilation of Decisions. -
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the
(1) Every agency shall publish and make available for
form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily
public inspection all decisions or final orders in the
available. Upon request, the parties shall be given
adjudication of contested cases.
opportunity to compare the copy with the original. If
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
169 (2) It shall be the duty of the records officer of the agency or his equivalent functionary to prepare a register or compilation of those decisions or final
resolution of reversal within which to perfect his appeal. (3) The agency shall, upon perfection of the
orders for use by the public.
appeal, transmit the records of the case to the
Sec. 17. Licensing Procedure. - (1) When the grant,
appellate agency.
renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is required
Sec. 21. Effect of Appeal. - The appeal shall stay the
to be preceded by notice and hearing, the provisions
decision appealed from unless otherwise provided by
concerning contested cases shall apply insofar as
law, or the appellate agency directs execution pending
practicable.
appeal, as it may deem just, considering the nature
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent
and circumstance of the case.
laws, rules and regulations or when public security,
Sec. 22. Action on Appeal. - The appellate agency
health, or safety require otherwise, no license may be
shall review the records of the proceedings and may,
withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without
on its own initiative or upon motion, receive additional
notice and hearing.
evidence.
Sec. 18. Non-expiration of License. - Where the
Sec. 23. Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency. - In
licensee has made timely and sufficient application for
any contested case, the decision of the appellate
the renewal of a license with reference to any activity
agency shall become final and executory 15 days after
of a continuing nature, the existing license shall not
the receipt by the parties of a copy thereof.
expire until the application shall have been finally
Sec. 24. Hearing Officers. - (1) Each agency shall
determined by the agency.
have
such
number
of
qualified
and
competent
members of the base as hearing officers as may be Chapter 4 ADMINISTRATIVE
necessary APPEAL
IN
CONTESTED
CASES
for
the
hearing
and
adjudication
of
contested cases. (2) No hearing officer shall engaged in the
Sec. 19. Appeal. - Unless otherwise provided by law
performance of prosecuting functions in any contested
or executive order, an appeal form a final decision of
case or any factually related case.
the agency may be taken to the Department head.
Sec. 25. Judicial Review. - (1) Agency decisions shall
Sec. 20. Perfection of Administrative Appeals. - (1)
be subject to judicial review in accordance with this
Administrative appeals under this Chapter shall be
chapter and applicable laws.
perfected within 15 days after receipt of a copy of the decision
complained
of
by
the
party
adversely
affected, by filing with the agency which adjudicated
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision may seek judicial review. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought
the case a notice of appeal, serving copies thereof
against
the
agency,
or
its
officers,
and
all
upon the prevailing party and the appellate agency,
indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the
and paying the required fees.
Rules of Court.
(2) If a motion for reconsideration is denied, the
(4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be
movant shall have the right to perfect his appeal
perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days
during the remainder of the period for appeal,
from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and
reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. If
with the reviewing court a petition for review of the
the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the
order. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the
aggrieved party shall have 15 days from receipt of the
agency and all parties of record. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
170 the grounds relied upon for the 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 and shall show, by stating the specific material dates, that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final administrative
decision.
One
motion
for
reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. It the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. (6) 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. (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. Sec. 26. Transmittal of Record. - Within 15 days from the service of the petition for review, the agency shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the entire records of the proceeding under review. The record to be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all parties to the proceedings. The court may require or permit subsequent correction or additions to the record.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
ADM IN IST RATI VE LAW
law is silent as to the control which the President may exercise, the President can only supervise, i.e., to see to it that the
I.
Historical and Constitutional Considerations
laws are faithfully executed.
•
time, (2) expertise, and (3)
A. Development of Administrative Law as a
organizational aptitude for effective and
distinct field of public law
1.
The 3 branches of government lack (1)
continuing regulation of new developments in society [Stone]. Thus,
Factors Responsible for the Emergence of
there is a need for a body which would
Administrative Agencies
act as a “catchbasin,” otherwise the 3
a. Growing complexities of modern life;
branches would collapse. The
b. Multiplication of number of subjects
Administrative Agency supports the
needing government regulation; and
trichotomy of powers.
c. Increased difficulty of administering laws. [Laurel, J. in Pangasinan
A. Definition of Terms
Transportation v Public Service Commission (1940)]
2.
Doctrine of “Separation of Powers” and the
1. Administrative Law
•
with the doctrines and principles
constitutional position of Administrative
governing the powers and procedures of
Agencies
•
administrative agencies, especially
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers,
including judicial review of administrative
though not mentioned anywhere by such
action. [Prof. Kenneth Culp Davis]
name in the 1987 Constitution, can be
•
inferred from its provisions. The heart of
competence of administrative authorities
the government must be kept separate
and indicates to the individual remedies
from each other, each power being under the principal control of a branch of government. The legislative power is granted to the Congress, the executive power to the President, and the judicial power to the Judiciary.
Meaning: Branch of public law which fixes the organization and determines the
the doctrine is that the basic powers of
•
Meaning: Branch of public law dealing
for the violation of his rights. [Nachura] •
Kinds of Administrative Law:
a.
authorities.
b.
promulgated pursuant to the
exercises control over agencies and
purposes for which they were
offices which perform rule-making or
•
If the agency is created by Congress, consider the law that created it. If the
Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative authorities
The President as Chief Executive
adjudicatory functions.
Statutes setting up administrative
created.
c.
Determinations, decisions, and orders of such administrative authorities made in settlement of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
153
d.
controversies arising in their
administrative when it does not have
particular fields.
discretion to determine what the law shall
Body of doctrines and decisions
be but merely prescribes details for the
dealing with the creation, operation,
enforcement of the law.
•
and effect of determinations and
•
Any department, bureau, office,
regulations of such administrative
commission, authority or officer of the
authorities.
National Government authorized by law
Administration:
or executive order to make rules, issue
a.
licenses, grant rights or privileges, and
Meaning: Understood in 2 different
adjudicate cases; research institutions
senses:
with respect to licensing functions;
As a function: The execution, in
government corporations with respect to
non-judicial matters, of the law or
functions regulating private right,
will of the State as expressed by
privilege, occupation or business; and
competent authority.
officials in the exercise of disciplinary
As an organization: That group or
powers as provided by law. [Sec. 2, Book
aggregate of persons in whose hands
VII, Admin Code of 1987]
the reins of government are for the time being.
b.
Distinguished from government:
c.
Kinds:
3.
Internal: Legal side of public administration (e.g. matters
Powers of an Administrative Agency
a.
Quasi-legislative or rule-making power.
b.
Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power.
c.
Determinative powers [Nachura]
concerning personnel; fiscal and
•
Licensing.
planning activities).
•
Price/rate-fixing.
External: Deals with problems of
•
Implementing or executing.
government regulations (e.g. regulation of professions, industries or businesses). 2. Administrative Agency
•
4.
Types of Administrative Agencies a.
As to purpose:
1.
Government grant or gratuity, special privilege.
Meaning: Any governmental organ or
•
authority, other than a court or legislative
Admin., GSIS, SSS, PAO, etc.
body, which affects the rights of private parties, through rule-making and
2.
•
A body or agency is administrative where its function is primarily regulatory, even if it conducts hearings and determines controversies to carry out its regulatory
Carrying out the actual business of government.
adjudication. [Davis; Nachura]
•
Bureau of Lands, Phil. Veterans
BIR, Customs, Immigration, Land Registration Authority, etc.
3.
Service for public benefit. •
Philpost, PNR, MWSS, NFA, NHA, etc.
duty. On its rule-making authority, it is
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
154 4.
•
Regulation of businesses affected with public interest. •
XIV, Sec. 9]
Insurance Commission, LTFRB, NTC,
•
HLURB, etc.
5.
•
individuals.
6.
12]
2.
because of a strong social policy involved.
7. b.
GSIS, etc.
As to the organic law of creation: 1.
Legislative enactment / Congressional Statute (regulatory agency).
ECC, NLRC, SEC, DAR, COA, etc.
Government as private party. •
•
National Labor Relations Commission.
•
Social Security Commission.
•
Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
1987 Constitutional provision.
•
Civil Service Commission. [Art. IX-B]
•
Commission on Elections. [Art. IX-C]
•
Commission on Audit. [Art. IX-B]
•
Commission on Human Rights. [Art.
• •
• •
Philippine Patent Office.
•
Professional Regulation Commission.
XIII, Sec. 17]
•
Games and Amusement Board.
Commission on Appointments. [Art.
•
Board of Energy.
VI, Sec. 18]
•
Insurance Commission.
•
Dangerous Drugs Board.
Senate Electoral Tribunal. [Art. VI,
Judicial and Bar Council. [Art. VIII, Sec. 8]
•
3.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. [Art. VI, Sec. 17]
•
c.
As to hierarchy: 1.
Office of the President and Cabinet.
2.
Independent Constitutional Commissions.
Office of the Ombudsman. [Art. IX,
National Economic and Development Authority. [Art. XII, Sec. 20]
• •
Executive Order (fact-finding agency) / Authority of law.
•
Sec. 5]
•
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Sec. 17]
•
Consultative Body on Indigenous Cultural Communities. [Art. XVI, Sec.
SEC, etc.
Adjustment of individual controversies
•
National Police Commission. [Art. XVI, Sec. 6]
Regulation of private businesses and
•
National Language Commission. [Art.
3.
CSC, COMELEC, COA.
Other Constitutional Bodies.
•
Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, Office
An agency on Cooperatives. [Art. XII,
of the Special Prosecutor, Central
Sec. 15]
Monetary Authority, Economic and
An independent Central Monetary Authority. [Art XII, Sec. 20]
Planning Agency, Commission on Human Rights, National Language Commission, National Police
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
155 Commission, Commission on
b.
Indigenous Cultural Communities.
4.
technical knowledge, which would not be available, if it were taken through the
Regulatory Commission.
•
SEC, NLRC, Office of the Insurance
ordinary courts of law. c.
Commissioner, Land Transportation
in a way not possible if it were only the
CID, BIR.
outcome of a controversy between private
Public Corporation.
•
UP, NPC, MWSS, NDC, DBP.
It ensures that the action taken will have regard for the interests of the general public
Commission, Bureau of Customs,
5.
It provides for action that will be based on
parties to a suit.
d.
It permits the rules for the prevention of socially hurtful conduct to be flexible rules
5.
Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations
a)
Supplementary / detailed legislation: To “fix
based on discretion, and thus make possible the introduction of order in fields not advantageously permitting the application of
the details” in the execution and enforcement
rules of a rigid permanent character.
of a legislative policy (e.g. Rules and
[Dickinson]
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code).
b)
Interpretative legislation: To construe or
B. Cases
interpret the provisions of a statute to be enforced; binding on all concerned until changed. They have the effect of law and are entitled to great respect, having in their favor the presumption of legality [Gonzalez v Land Bank]. The erroneous application of the law by public officers does not bar a subsequent correct application [Manila Jockey Club v CA (1998)] (e.g. BIR Circulars, CB Circulars).
c)
Contingent legislation: Made by an administrative authority on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law depends. [Cruz v Youngberg]
6.
Advantages of Administrative Regulation a.
Regulation by government opens a way for action to be taken in the public interest to prevent future harm when there would be no assurance that any action would be taken if the initiative were left wholly to interested individuals.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
156 •
•
Manila Electric Co. v Pasay Transport (1932)
Members of SC and inferior courts of justice shall
The SC should strictly confine its own sphere of
not be designated to any agency performing
influence to the powers expressly or by
quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
implication conferred on it by the Organic Act.
Administrative functions “involve the regulation
The SC and its members should not nor cannot be
and control over the conduct and affairs of
required to exercise any power or to perform any
individuals for their own welfare, and the
task, or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
promulgation of rules and regulations top better
connected with administering judicial functions. A
carry out legislative policy or such as are
board of arbitrators is not a court in any proper
designated to any agency by the organic law of its
sense of the term, and possesses none of the
existence.” RTC judges should render assistance
jurisdiction granted by the Organic Act to the SC.
to said agencies only when such assistance may
Noblejas vs. Teehankee (1968)
be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their
The legislature could not have intended for the
judicial duties.
Land Registration Commissioner and other
•
similarly ranked officials to hold same rank as a
An indirect appearance as counsel by an
judge of the CFI, because it would place upon the
Assemblyman before an administrative body
SC the duty of investigating and disciplining these
circumvents the Constitutional prohibition. A
officials, who are performing executive functions
contrary rule would permit an Assemblyman to
and thus under the supervision and control of the
influence an administrative body just by acquiring
President. It would be unconstitutional, being
minimal participation in the “interest” of the client
violative of the separation of powers, and would
and then “intervening” in the proceedings.
diminish the control of the Chief Executive over
•
executive officials.
•
Puyat v De Guzman
Phil. Ass’n of Service Exporters v Torres Both LOIs and EOs are presidential issuances;
Garcia v. Macaraig (1971)
one may repeal or otherwise alter, modify or
The line between what a judge may and may not
amend the other, depending on which comes
do in working with other offices under the other
later.
departments must always be jealously observed,
•
Eastern Shipping Lines v CA (1998)
lest the principle of separation of powers be
An administrative agency has no discretion WON
eroded. No judge of even the lowest court should
to implement a law. Its duty is to enforce the
place himself in a position where his actuations
law. Thus if there is a conflict between the
would be subject to review and prior approval
circular issued by the agency and an EO issued by
and, worse still, review, before they can have any
the president, the latter prevails.
legal effect, by any authority other than the CA or the SC. •
II.
Control of Administrative Action
In re: Manzano (1988)
A. Administrative agencies and the executive power of the President 1.
Legislative control a.
Powers of the Legislative 1.
Creation and abolition.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
157 •
•
Congress can create, divide, merge, modify, or even abolish
economy and efficiency of
agencies.
•
government operations.
Power to abolish is not effective
2.
because administrative agencies Appropriation. •
Congressional investigation.
•
are needed.
2.
effect because annual
c) 3.
any regulation before it takes effect.
2.
Executive control
The standards must be effective and sufficient.
Prescription of minimum procedural requirements. •
Legislative veto: Congress has “right” to approve/disapprove
Ineffective because the
lack the expertise.
Legislative supervision.
•
Pprescription of legislative standards.
those who make the standards
Persons appearing therein afforded their rights.
Effective only as an aid in
standards should be flexible and
5.
Conducted in accordance
procedure; and
need for constant regulation.
•
b)
with duly published rules of
Investigatory.
•
In aid of legislation;
Congressional approval,
legislation and cannot serve the
4.
a)
appropriation usually gets otherwise, public suffers.
•
3 limitations under the 1987 Constitution:
Congress has budgetary power. In actual life, no appreciable
3.
E.g. budgetary hearings – Allows
There must be a shift towards having administrative standards
Art. VII, Sec.1, 1987 Consti. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987 Consti. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
instead to allow the agencies enough flexibility. b.
Congressional Oversight Committee
•
over all offices in the Executive branch,
[Macalintal v COMELEC]
1.
Power of appointment, power of control
and sworn duty to preserve and defend
Scrutiny.
the Constitution and execute the laws
•
(which entitles the President to influence
Based on the power of
the conduct of administrative bodies if in
appropriation.
•
Sec. 22, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution: Department heads may be ordered to appear on any matter pertaining to their departments.
his view they violate the Constitution).
•
The President controls administrative agencies except when such agencies are created by the legislature. One must check the enabling laws regarding the particular legislative intent. If the law is
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
158 silent, the President cannot exercise control but merely supervision. 3.
•
revise an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or officer
Judicial Control
• •
upon whom that judgment or
Power of judicial review over decisions of
discretion is lawfully vested especially
administrative agencies.
when the matter involves basically
Radical view: Courts should review not
technical matters coming under the special technical knowledge and
only agency’s conclusions of law but even
training of the agency or officer.
its determinations of fact and policy.
•
The Ombudsman may not veto or
[Concerned Officials of the MWSS
Traditional/Accepted view: Judicial review is allowed on questions of law and jurisdiction, but not on questions of fact
v Vasquez (1995)]
•
including cabinet members, GOCC’s
and policy. Courts defer to the expertise
and local government are within its
and experience of agencies in their areas
jurisdiction, except those who may
of specialization. Courts are confined to seeing to it that agencies stay within the limits of their power or to checking
All elective and appointive officials,
be removed only by impeachment.
•
The office of the Ombudsman has the
arbitrariness in the administrative
power to investigate and prosecute
process.
on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any
4.
Ombudsman
public officer or employee, office or
a.
agency, when such act or omission
b.
c.
Powers:
1.
Investigatory.
2.
Prosecutorial.
•
Own initiative.
•
From a complaint.
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or
3.
Public assistance functions.
omissions complained of are related
4.
Authority to inquire and obtain
to, or connected with, or arise from,
information.
the performance of his official duty.
Necessary characteristics:
It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official.
1.
Political independence.
2.
Accessibility and expedition /
direct, reverse or modify a decision
independence.
of a prosecutor deputized or
3.
Grant of investigatory power.
designated to be under the
4.
Absence of revisory jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction:
The Ombudsman may review, revise,
Ombudsman’s control and supervision. [Lastimosa v Vasquez (1995)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
159 Note: The Ombudsman has absolutely no revisory powers.
III.
Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies
Rather, the delegated prosecutor acts as the Ombudsman’s agent; therefore, all actions/decisions made
A. Legislative function
by the prosecutor are deemed as action/decisions of the Ombudsman.
1.
Non-delegation doctrine
Seen in this light, the Ombudsman
•
has the right to change his
Potestas delegata non delegare potest.
action/decision.
– What has been delegated cannot be
The Ombudsman may not initiate a
delegated.
criminal or administrative complaint against a judge. The Ombudsman
a.
Requisites for a valid delegation: [Pelaez
must indorse the case to the SC for
v Auditor General (1965)]
appropriate action. No other entity
1)
or official of the Government has the
it must set forth the policy to be
competence to review a judicial order or decision and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a
executed.
2)
determinate or determinable, to
[Fuentes v Office of the
which the delegate must conform in
Ombudsman (2001)] Under Sec. 13(3), Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, the “recommendation”
The law must fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently
criminal or administrative complaint.
•
The law must be complete in itself;
the performance of his functions.
•
The standard may be:
that emanates from the Ombudsman
(a)
Express;
after it has conducted its
(b)
Implied; [Edu v Ericta (1970)]
investigation is not merely advisory
or
but binding and mandatory. The
(c)
Ombudsman has the authority to
the same matter and not
determine the administrative liability
necessarily in the same law
of a public official or employee, and
being challenged. [Chiongbian v
direct and compel the head of the office or agency concerned to implement the penalty imposed. [Ledesma v CA (2005)]
•
Embodied in other statutes on
Orbos (1995)]
•
Sufficient standard: One which
(a)
Defines legislative policy,
The pendency of an action is not a
marks its limits, maps out its
prerequisite for the Ombudsman to
boundaries and specifies the
start its own investigation. It can do
public agency to apply it; and
so even on a verbal, unsigned, or unverified complaint. [BIR v
(b)
Indicates the circumstances under which the legislative
Ombudsman (2002)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
160 command is to be effected.
1.
[Santiago v COMELEC
[Pelaez v Auditor General (1965)]
(1997); ABAKADA Guro
•
List v Ermita (2005)]
•
Creation of municipalities.
Note: Although the creation of municipalities is purely a
The Constitution has never been
legislative matter, Chiongbian v
regarded as denying to Congress the
Orbos says that the merging of
necessary flexibility and practicality
administrative regions is an
which will enable it to perform its
administrative matter.
function in laying down policies and
2. Defining a crime.
establishing standards, while leaving
[US v Ang Tang Ho (1922);
to selected instrumentalities the
People v Maceren]
making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the legislative
2. Permissible delegation
a.
Ascertainment of fact.
•
to apply. There is a distinction
officers the power to declare the
between (a) delegation of power to
existence of facts which call into
make the law and (b) conferring
operation its provisions and may
authority/discretion as to its
grant them and their subordinate
execution. [Panama Refining v
officers power to ascertain and
Ryan (1935)]
determine appropriate facts as a
Cardozo, J. dissent: There has
basis of procedure in the
been no grant to the Executive of any
enforcement of laws. Such functions,
roving commission to inquire into
whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are
evils and then, upon discovering
merely incidental to the exercise of
them, do anything he pleases.
power granted by law to clear
Discretion is not unconfined and
navigable streams of unauthorized
vagrant. It is canalized within
obstructions. They are validly
banks that keep it from
conferable upon executive officials
overflowing. b.
provided the party affected is given
Valid delegation:
the opportunity to be heard. [Lovina
[People v Vera (1937)] 1.
Fix tariffs, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage fees.
v Moreno (1963)]
b.
Filling in of details. •
A statute which leaves to the
2.
Emergency powers.
3.
Delegation to the people-at-large.
4.
Delegation to local authorities.
expertise is a recognized delegation
5.
Delegation to administrative
of legislative power.
agencies. c.
A statute may give to non-judicial
What cannot be delegated
Executive the power to fill in the technical details in view of the latter’s
•
The legislature, from necessity and as a means of enforcement and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
161 execution, have to delegate such
c.
h)
If there is discrepancy between
power. [Alegre v Collector of
the basic law and an
Customs (1920)]
administrative rule, the basic law
Administrative rule-making.
prevails. [Maxima Realty v
1.
Parkway Real Estate (2004)]
Limits on rule-making power:
a)
i)
Must be authorized by law.
new legislative policy, requiring
[Olsen v Aldanese (1922)]
b)
the adjustment of various other
Must not amend the law or must
contending policies. [Ople v
not be inconsistent with the law.
Torres (1998)]
[Syman v Jacinto (1953)]
c)
j)
Must not define a criminal act.
(Ass’n of Phil. Coconut
Must be germane to the purpose
Desiccators v PHILCOA
of the law which it was meant to
(1998))
implement; power to promulgate
k)
rules may be legitimately
Corrections), the rulemaking
provisions of the law into effect.
authority legislatively vested in
[Toledo v CSC (1991)]
f)
May not delegate, to a mere constituent unit (e.g. Bureau of
exercised only for carrying the
e)
May not dismantle a regulatory system that was set up by law.
[People v Maceren (1977)]
d)
May not unilaterally impose a
the head of an executive
Must not restrict, expand,
department (e.g. DoJ), such
diminish, supplant or modify the
being an abdication of
law. [GMCR v Bell Telecom
responsibility by the latter.
(1997)]
[Echegaray v Secretary of
Action of the administrative
Justice (1998)]
agency to be set aside if there is
2.
Publication and effectivity.
an error of law, grave abuse or lack of jurisdiction clearly conflicting with either the letter
g)
Art. 2, Civil Code (as amended by EO 200, June 8, 1987). –
or the spirit of the law. [Land
Laws shall take effect after 15 days
Bank v CA (1995)]
following the completion of their publication
The basic law should prevail as
either in the Official Gazette or in a
embodiment of the legislative purpose; rules and regulations cannot go beyond the law’s terms and provisions. [China Banking v Member of the Board of Trustees, Home
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. Sec. 4, 1987 Admin Code. Effectivity. – In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall
Development Mutual Fund
become effective 15 days from the date of
(1999)]
filing as above provided unless a different
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
162 (a) Different date is fixed by law
date is fixed by law, or specified in the ruling in cases of imminent danger to
or specified in the rule.
public health, safety, and welfare, the
(b) In case of imminent danger
existence of which must be expressed in a
to public health, safety and
statement accompanying the rule. The
welfare.
agency shall take appropriate measures to
•
make emergency rules known to persons
General rule: Publication is indispensable especially if the
who may be affected by them.
rule is general in character. Sec. 5, 1987 Admin Code. Publication
Exceptions:
and Recording. – The University of the
(a) Interpretative rules.
Philippines Law Center shall:
(b) Internal regulations (i.e.
(1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting
regulating only personnel of
forth the text of rules filed with it during
agency).
the preceding quarter; and
(c) Letters of instructions issued
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all
by administrative superior to
rules thus published and remaining in
subordinates.
effect together with a complete index and
•
appropriate tables.
Circulars which prescribe a penalty for its violation should be
Sec. 6, 1987 Admin Code. Omission of
published before becoming
Some Rules. – (1) The University of the
effective for the people to be
Philippines Law Center may omit from the
officially informed. Before the
bulletin or the codification any rule if its publication would be unduly cumbersome,
public may be bound by its
expensive or otherwise inexpedient, but
contents, especially its penal
copies of that rule shall be made available
provisions, a law, regulation or
on application in the agency which
circular must be published and
adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a
the people officially and
notice stating the general subject matter
specifically informed of said
of the omitted rule and how copies thereof
contents and its penalties.
may be obtained.
•
[People v Que Po Lay (1954)]
•
General rule: Administrative
of general circulation is
rules and regulations are subject
indispensable in every case for
to the publication and effectivity
the effectivity of administrative
rules of the Admin Code in
rules and regulations. But the
relation to the Civil Code:
legislature may in its discretion
Effectivity is 15 days after
provide that the usual 15-day
publication, not 15 days from
period be shortened or extended.
date of filing with the UP Law Center. [Republic v Express Telecomm (2002)]
Publication in OG or newspaper
[Tanada v Tuvera] 3.
Penal regulations
Exceptions:
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
163 Sec. 6, 1987 Admin Code. Omission of
•
Administrative interpretations
Some Rules. – (2) Every rule establishing an
are appropriate aids toward
offense or defining an act which, pursuant to
eliminating construction and
law is punishable as a crime or subject to a
uncertainty in doubtful cases.
penalty shall in all cases be published in full
When laws are susceptible of two
text.
or more interpretations, the
•
administrative agency should If a rule is penal in character, the rule must be published before it takes effect. (People v Que Po
make known its official position.
•
by an administrative agency of
Lay (1954)]
•
•
4.
the law under which it acts
The law itself must so declare
provide a practical guide as to
the act as punishable. The law
how the agency will seek to
should also define or fix the
apply the law, and to which
penalty for the violation.
courts and litigants may properly
The domain of penal statues is
resort for guidance.
exclusive to the legislature and
•
Construction and interpretation
•
The administrative construction
cannot be delegated.
or interpretation is not
Administrative rules and
controlling as to the proper
regulations cannot amend or
construction of a statute, but
modify or expand the law by
generally it is given great weight,
including, prohibiting or
has a very persuasive influence
punishing certain acts which the
and may actually be regarded by
law does not even define as a
the courts as the controlling
criminal act. [People v Maceren
factor. Still, regulations enacted,
(1977)]
pursuant to the broad rule-
Interpretative rules.
making power under a statute
•
conferring a privilege to be
Administrative agencies in the
exercised "under regulations pre-
discharge of their duties are
caused" by an administrative
necessarily called upon to
agency, will not be disturbed
construe and apply the
except for cogent and persuasive
provisions of the law under which
reasons and clear conviction of
they function. This necessity for
error.
and power of construction and interpretation does not change
•
There is no constitutional
the character of a ministerial
requirement for a hearing in the
duty, or involve an unlawful use
promulgation of a general
of legislative or judicial power.
regulation by an administrative
They may also interpret their
body. Where (a) the rule is
own rules which have the force
procedural, or (b) the rules are
and effect of law.
in effect merely legal opinions, or
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
164 (c) the rules are substantive, the
what the law means. [Victorias
class to be affected is large, and
v Social Security Commission
the questions to be resolved
(1962)]
involve the use of discretion committed to the rule-making
•
agency will be set aside if there
body, no notice or prior hearing
was error of law, or abuse of
is required. [Corona v United
power, or lack of jurisdiction, or
Harbor Pilots Ass’n of the
grave abuse of discretion clearly
Phils. (1997)]
•
spirit of the legislative
administrative rules in the nature
enactment. [Peralta v CSC
of subordinate legislation and
(1992)]
interpretative rules. The former is designed to implement a law by providing its details; before its adoption there must be a hearing under the Administrative Code. When an administrative rule substantially adds to or increases the burden of those concerned, an administrative agency must accord those directly affected a chance to be heard before its issuance. 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 (1956)]. Such wrong interpretation cannot place the Government in estoppel to correct or overrule the same. [Phil. Bank of Communications v CIR (1999)]
•
conflicting with the letter and
There is a distinction between
those which are merely
•
Action of the administrative
Administrative interpretation at best merely advisory; it is the
•
General requirements: (a) must have been issued on authority of law; (b) must be within the scope and purview of the law; (c) must be reasonable.
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.
Due process involves whether the parties were afforded the opportunity to be notified and heard before the issuance of the ruling.
Interpretative Rules passed pursuant to its quasi-judicial capacity. merely clarify the meaning of a preexisting law by inferring its implications. need not be published. 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 means that the body observed the proper procedure in passing rules.
courts that finally determine
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
165 d.
Fixing of rates, wages and prices
quasi-judicial. The distinction is not idle:
Sec. 9, 1987 Admin Code. 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 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon.
•
that all rules with respect to fixing of rates must be accompanied with notice and hearing, regardless if the rate-fixing function is legislative or quasi-judicial.
•
•
entity (quasi-judicial). [Philcomsat v Alcuaz (1989)] Note, however, that the Administrative Code now does not differentiate legislative from quasijudicial rate-fixing: notice and hearing is required for both.
•
other public service. The latter may
agencies because the legislature does
propose new rates, but these will not
not have the time, knowledge and
be effective without the approval of
means necessary to handle the
the administrative agency. [KMU v
matter efficiently. Need for dispatch, better met by administrative •
Basis
The power to fix rates cannot be delegated to a common carrier or
Function delegated to administrative
flexibility and technical know-how
Notice and hearing necessary if the rate to be fixed applies to only one
(3) In cases of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. Sec. 2(3), 1987 Admin Code. “Rate” means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms, including individual or joint rates, tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as well as communication, mileage, kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law of regulation to be observed and followed by any person.
Sec. 9 (2) of the Admin Code implies
Garcia (1994)]
•
In fixing the rate, the present
agencies.
valuation of all the property of a
Generally, the power to fix rates is a
public utility, viz, not only of the
quasi-legislative function. But if the
assets used by the public but also of
rate is applicable only to an
the fixed assets must be made on
individual, then the function becomes
that basis so a fair return of
Quasi-
Quasi-judicial
legislative
investment can be had. On principle, the property is deemed taken and condemned by the public at the time
As to
The procedure is
The procedure must
procedural
that normally
observe the
standards
observed in the
requirements of due
should go up and down with the
making of rules.
process in the 7
physical valuation of the property.
As to time
of filing the petition, and the rate
cardinal rules.
[Ynchausti v Public Utility
Rule-making is
Adjudication is
Commissioner (1922)]
prospective in
retrospective in
character, for it
character, for it
only governs
investigates acts
future acts.
already done and then applies the law on the facts.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] As to Legislative rules Adjudicative rulings [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] application are of general apply only to [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
application
parties
166 e.
Licensing Function
Sec. 17, 1987 Admin Code. 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. Sec. 18, 1987 Admin Code. 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. Sec. 2(10), 1987 Admin Code. “License” includes the whole or any party 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. Sec. 2(11), 1987 Admin Code. “Licensing” includes agency process involving the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification or conditioning or a license.
•
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 (1976)]
•
Notice and hearing in licensing is only required if it is a contested case. Otherwise, it can be dispensed with, as in the issuance of driver’s licenses.
B. Judicial Function
1.
Investigation and adjudication:
Sec. 10, 1987 Admin Code. 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. 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 crossexamine 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.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
167 •
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.
What is not inherent, and therefore requires an explicit grant from law, is their adjudicative power, i.e. the power to decide controversies involving rights and obligations of 3rd persons appearing before them, or the power to pass upon legal questions, which involve the
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.
application of the law to the facts. Except in the case of agencies with specific grant of adjudicative power (NLRC, SEC, CBAA), most other administrative agencies only have the power of investigation and not of
•
adjudication.
Just as there is no uniform procedure for all agencies, so also the procedure depends on the function that the agency is performing. Thus, when it is performing its adjudicative function, the procedural safeguards akin to those in courts must be observed. When performing its rule-making function, it must follow the procedure adopted by legislative bodies. When performing its
Kind of Proceedings Nature of Proceedings Rules of Procedure
Administrative
Nature and Extent of Decision
Decision limited to matters of general concern
Parties
The agency itself may be a party to the proceedings before it
licensing function, a modified judicial procedure is required. When dispensing government largess, it needs to
Judicial
Inquisitorial
Adversarial
Liberally applied
Follow technical rules in the Rules of Court Decision includes matters brought as issue by the parties The parties are only the private litigates
observe due process, since these largesses (pensions, license to practice a profession, social benefits, basis services)
2.
Power to issue subpoena and declare contempt
are new forms of property.
•
Administrative agencies have the power to conduct investigations and hearings, and make findings and recommendations thereon, since these are inherent in their functions as administrative agencies. The findings of facts by administrative bodies which observed procedural safeguards (e.g. notice and
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.
hearing parties, and a full consideration of evidence) are recorded the greatest respect by courts.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
168 (ex. PD 902-A creating the SEC). If there
Sec. 6, P.D. 902 – A. In order to effectively exercise such jurisdiction, the SEC shall possess the following powers: a) To punish for contempt of the Commission, both direct and indirect, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of, and penalties prescribed by, the Rules of Court. xxx e) To issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witnesses to appear in any proceedings of the Commission and in appropriate cases order search and seizure or cause the search and seizure of all documents, papers, files and records as well as books of accounts of any entity or person under investigation as may be necessary for the proper disposition of cases before it.
is no express grant, the agency must invoke the aid of the RTC. Rationale: Power to punish for contempt is inherently judicial.
•
The power to declare contempt cannot be used in the discharge of ministerial functions, but only in relation to quasijudicial functions [Guevarra v COMELEC (1958)]
•
It is not for the SC to whittle down the authority conferred on administrative
•
•
All agencies with quasi-judicial functions
agencies to assure the effective
have the power to issue subpoena, even
administration of a statute. If the matter
if the administrative agency’s charter is
is properly within its cognizance, the
silent as to such power. Rationale: Power
means necessary to give it force and
to adjudicate will be rendered inutile if
effectiveness should be deemed implied,
there is no power to issue subpoena.
unless the power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private
Subpoenas may be enforced WON
rights. [Catura v CIR (1971)]
adjudication is involved, WON probably
•
cause is shown, and even before the
A public official exercises power, not
issuance of a complaint. It is not
rights. The government itself is merely an
necessary that a specific charge or
agency through which the will of the
complaint for a violation of law be
State is expressed and enforced. Its
pending; it is enough that the
officers are likewise agents entrusted
investigation be for a lawfully authorized
with the responsibility of discharging its
purpose. The purpose of the subpoena is
functions. As such there is no
to discover evidence, not to prove a
presumption that they are empowered to
pending charge but upon which to make
act. [Tolentino v Inciong (1979)]
one if justified. Test for valid enforcement of subpoena:
(a)
Within the authority of the agency.
(b)
Demand not too indefinite.
(c)
Information reasonably relevant. [Evangelista v Jarencio (1975)]
•
Not all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to cite for contempt, as the power must be expressly granted in the agency’s charter
3.
Warrants of arrest, administrative searches
Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Consti. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge, after examination under oath or affirmation by the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
169 Exception: deportation of illegal and
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Art. IV, Sec. 3, 1973 Consti. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and whatever purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
undesirable aliens following a final order of deportation. •
(a) Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37 of CA618
(b)
•
no grounds needed; has sole discretion under international law
•
and the Deportation Board is his
The phrase “or such other responsible
authorized agent, the power granted to
officer as may be authorized by law” in
the latter does not extend to the power
the 1973 Constitution was deleted to
to arrest. The exercise of such power
forestall human rights abuses as during
demands the exercise of discretion by the
Martial Law, when one could be arrested
one exercising the same, to determine
by the military on mere suspicion by the
whether under specific circumstances,
strength of the warrant of arrest, ASSO
the curtailment of liberty is warranted.
or PDA issued by the Ministry of National
And while ministerial duties may be
Defense or Generals in their respective
delegated, official functions requiring
regions.
exercise of discretion and judgment may not be so delegated. Immigration
The word “shall” was added to “warrant
authorities can issue warrants of arrest against undesirable aliens only if such
subsequent phrase was reworded in this
issuance is pursuant to a final order of
wise: “to be determined personally” by
deportation. They cannot issue warrants
the judge. This is to give more
for purposes of investigation, as the
responsibility to the judge who will issue
Constitution provides that only judges
the warrant of arrest and be accountable
can do so to determine probable cause.
for it.
[Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board
Both provisions are express guarantees
(1963)]
against unwarranted violations of the
Note: The Constitution does not
privacy and security of persons and their
distinguish between warrants in a
properties.
•
While it is clear that the President’s power of investigation may be delegated
of arrest shall issue” and finally the
•
President after due investigation pursuant to Sec 69 of Admin Code
0
•
Two ways of deporting:
criminal case and administrative warrants
Administrative agencies cannot issue warrants of arrest. Only a judge may issue warrants. [Salazar v Achacoso (1990)]
in administrative proceedings.
•
The CFI has no jurisdiction to restrain deportation proceedings as they are within the jurisdiction of the Immigration authorities under the Immigration Act.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
170 However, the issuance of the warrants of
•
arrest by the Commissioner, solely for the
CID preparatory to the deportation
purpose of investigation and before a
proceedings is illegal, although the CID
final order of deportation is issued,
can order arrests for the purpose of the
conflicts with paragraph 3, Sec. 1, Art. III
deportation proceedings. Here, the
of the 1935 Constitution, which states
particular circumstances place doubt on
that the power to determine probable
the propriety of the arrest. The Mission
cause for warrants of arrest is limited to
Order was issued on the basis of sworn
judges. Notice and bonds are sufficient to
complaints of a single individual. The
ensure that the subject will appear at the
essential requisite of probable cause is
hearing without prejudice to more drastic
absent. But even assuming that the
measures in case of recalcitrant
arrest was at first illegal, supervening
respondents. Warrants of arrest issued
events have rendered this petition for
solely for the purpose of investigation
habeas corpus moot and academic.
and before a final order of deportation is
[Lucien Tran Van Nghia v Liwag
issued are therefore null and void. [Vivo
(1989)]
v Montesa (1968)]
•
The arrest and detention of Lucien by the
These two cases contradict the Qua Chee
The deportation charges were in
Gan doctrine because both allowed arrest by
accordance with the Philippine
Commissioner upon determination of
Immigration Act and the Revised
existence of a ground to deport.
Administrative Code, which empowers
Consider these two cases as a glitch. The
the Commissioner to arrest aliens upon a
Qua Chee Gan doctrine prevails, as
warrant issued by him and deported upon
supported by Salazar. Not only is Salazar a
warrant issued by the same after a
later case, it was also decided en banc, while
determination of the existence of a
Harvey was decided by a division.
ground for deportation by the Board of Commissioners. Deportation proceedings are administrative in nature, and are not penal, but merely preventive. Thus, it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary court proceedings. The requirement of probable cause, determined by a judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings. What is essential however is that (1) there be a specific charge against the alien, (2) there be a fair hearing conducted, and (3) the charge be substantiated by competent evidence. [Harvey v Defensor-Santiago (1988)]
•
Art, 38 of the Labor Code allowing the Secretary of Labor the power to issue warrants of arrest is unconstitutional for under the Constitution, only a judge may issue search or arrest warrants. Vivo v. Montesa is not a precedent because the arrest warrant was given to carry out a final decision of deportation. The SC reaffirms the following principles: (1) Under Sec.2, Art. III of the Constitution, only judges may issue search warrants and warrants of arrest; and (2) the exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner may order arrested, following a final order of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
171 deportation, for the purpose of the same.
(d)
[Salazar v Achacoso (1990)]
documents.
Note: Following (2), the Harvey and
(e)
Lucien cases prove to be anomalies.
•
Subpoena may not be made and enforced in the field.
A warrant of arrest issued by a commissioner
(f)
to be valid must be for the sole purpose of
Subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of reasonableness of demand prior
executing a final order of deportation. A
to suffering penalties for refusal to
warrant of arrest issued by the commissioner
comply.
for purposes of investigation only, is null and
The particular agency’s demand for access
void for being unconstitutional, following Qua
will be measured against a flexible standard
Chee Gan. [Board of Commissioners v
of reasonableness that takes into account the
Dela Rosa (1991)]
•
Subpoena must designate the needed
public need for effective enforcement of
Warrantless non-emergency inspection of
regulations. [See v Seattle]
residential and commercial premises by city health officials are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the 4th Amendment. It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the constitution only
4.
Imposition of fines and penalties: •
Agencies have the power to impose fines and penalties.
•
Test for valid imposition:
(a)
when he is suspected of criminal behavior.
authority of Congress to legislate.
Warrants likely should normally be sought
(b)
only after entry is refused unless there is a
(c)
for securing immediate entry. [Camara v Municipal Court (1967)]
Agency expressly authorized to impose penalty. [Oceanic Steam Navigation v Stranahan (1908)]
A warrant must first be secured. There is no justification for relaxing 4th Amendment
Penalty to be imposed must be administrative or civil in character.
citizen complaint or other satisfactory reason
•
Subject matter must be within
•
Where the statute does not authorize
safeguards where the official inspection is
executive officials themselves to impose
intended for the enforcement of laws
the penalty, recourse will have to be
prescribing minimum physical standards for
made to the ordinary courts.
commercial premises. Warrants are a
•
Imposition of criminal penalties, if not
necessary and tolerable limitation on the right
clearly stated in the statute, is a judicial
to enter upon and inspect places of business.
and not an administrative function
Limitations on administrative subpoenas of
[Scoty’s Department Store v Micaller
corporate books and documents:
(1956)]
(a)
Limited in scope.
(b)
Relevant in purpose.
(c)
Specific directives so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome.
•
The fixing of penalties for criminal offenses is an exercise of legislative power which cannot be delegated by the Legislature. [US v Barrias (1908)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
172 •
8.
A fine in the nature of a civil penalty (i.e.
Maintain monetary stability, promote rising
not in the nature of a criminal penalty)
level of production & real income. [People v
that is exacted not so much as a penalty
Joliffe (1959)]
•
for the violation of administrative rules but for the need to stress desistance
What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient standard. [Burstyn v Wilson (1952)]
from wanton disregard of existing rules, regulations, or requirements, is an
IV.
Administrative Procedure
administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecution. If
A. In Rule-Making: Price, wage or rate-fixing (see related areas in this reviewer)
every time the agency wishes to impose a civil penalty for violations it had to
B. In Adjudication of cases
resort to courts of justice in protracted litigations, it could not serve its purpose
1.
Rules of Procedure
2.
Due Process
as an administrative body. [Civil Aeronautics Board v Phil. Airlines (1975)]
a. Cardinal Primary Rights: [Ang Tibay v CIR (1950)]
C.
Judicial determination of sufficiency of
1.
Right to a hearing.
•
standards
Includes the right of a part to present his own case and submit
1.
Interest of law and order. [Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]
2.
Justice, equity and substantial merits of the case. [International Hardwood v Pangil (1940)]
4.
What is moral, educational or amusing. [Mutual Film Corp v Industrial Commission (1914)]
5.
Adequate and efficient instruction. [PACU v Secretary (1955)]
6. 7.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
Public interest. [People v Rosenthal & Osmeña (1939)]
3.
evidence in support thereof.
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
Reasonableness as an implied standard in
evidence presented at the hearing or
every law. [Wisconsin v Whitman (1928)]
at least contained in the record and
To promote simplicity, economy or efficiency. [Cervantes v Auditor-General (1952)]
disclosed to the parties affected.
•
Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
173
6.
their right to know and meet the
one who issued the appealed
case against them.
decision. Otherwise, the review
Independent consideration of judge.
becomes a farce; it is rendered
•
Must not simply accept the views
meaningless. [Rivera v CSC
of a subordinate in arriving at a
(1995)]
decision. 7.
verbal arguments only in court; one
as to let the parties know the various
may also be heard through
issues involved and the reasons for
pleadings. [Casimiro v Tandog
the decision rendered.
(2005)]. WON to hold an adversarial
•
Does due process always entail
trial is discretionary and parties
notice and hearing prior to the
cannot demand it as a matter of
deprivation of a right? No.
right. [Vinta Maritime v NLRC
Hearing may occur after the
(1978)]. Administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in the
in which case, there must be a
strict judicial sense. [Ocampo v
chance to seek reconsideration.
Office of the Ombudsman
[UP Board of Regents v CA
(2000)].
•
No notice is necessary for
The right to substantive and
suspension, because the latter is only
procedural due process is applicable
preventive in nature. [Busuego v CA
in administrative proceedings. [CSC
(1999)].
v Lucas (1999)]
•
The right of a party to confront and
Presence of a party at a trial is not
cross-examine opposing witness is a
always the essence of due process.
fundamental right which is part of
All that the law requires is the
due process. If without his fault, his
element of fairness; that the
right to cross-examine is violated, he
parties be given notice of trial and
is entitled to have the direct
an opportunity to be heard
examination stricken off the record.
[Asprec v Itchon (1966)] or, as
[Bachrach Motors v CIR (1978)]
applied to administrative
•
Evidence on record must be fully
proceedings, an opportunity to
disclosed to the parties. [American
seek reconsideration [De la Cruz
Inter-Fashion v Office of the
v Abille (2001)] or an opportunity
President (1991)]
to explain one’s side [Pilipinas Loan v SEC (2001)].
•
•
cases [Goss v Lopez (1975)],
(1999)]
•
“To be heard” does not mean only
Decision rendered in such a manner
deprivation, as in emergency
•
•
•
Respondents in administrative cases are not entitled to be informed of
The law, in prescribing a process of
findings of investigative committees
appeal to a higher level,
but only of the decision of the
contemplates that the reviewing
administrative body. [Pefianco v
officer is a person different from the
Moral (2000)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
174 •
Mere consultations and conferences
[Equitable Banking v NLRC
may not be valid substitutes for
(1997)]
(b) When it affects a person’s status
observance of notice and hearing.
•
[Equitable Banking v NLRC
and liberty. [Commissioner of
(1997)]
Immigration v Fernandez]
2. When not required:
Three factors determining constitutional sufficiency of
(a) Urgent reasons.
administrative procedures:
(b) Discretion is exercised by an
(a) Private interest that will be
officer vested with it upon an
affected.
undisputed fact. [Suntay v
(b) Risk of erroneous deprivation of
People (1957)]
such interest and probable value
(c) If it involves the exercise of
of safeguards.
discretion and there is no grave
(c) Public interest vis-à-vis
abuse. [De Bisschop v Galang]
government costs. [Matthews v
(d) When rules to govern future
Eldridge]
•
conduct of persons or
Due process is violated when there is
enterprises, unless law provides
failure to sufficiently explain the
otherwise. [Taxicab Operators
reason for the decision rendered;
of Manila v Board of
lack of support therefor in substantial
Transportation]
(e) In the valid exercise of police
evidence; and the imputation of a violation and imposition of a
power. [Pollution Adjudication
corresponding fine despite the
Board v CA (1991)]
absence of due notice and hearing.
c.
Form and promulgation of judgment
[Globe Telecom v NTC (2004)].
•
The right against self-incrimination
Sec. 2(8), 1987 Admin Code. ”Decision”
may be invoked by the respondent at
means the whole or any part of the final
the time he is called by the
disposition, not an interlocutory character,
complainant as a witness. However,
whether affirmative, negative, or injunctive in
if he voluntarily takes the witness
form, of an agency in any matter, including
stand, he can be cross examined; but
licensing, rate fixing, and granting of rights and
he may still invoke the right when
privileges.
the question calls for an answer which incriminates him of an offense
Sec. 14. Decision. — Every decision rendered
other than that charged. [People v
by the agency in a contested case shall be in
Ayson]
writing and shall state clearly the facts and the
b. Notice and hearing: 1. When required: (a) When the law specifically requires notice and hearing.
law on which it is based. The agency shall decide each case within thirty days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
175 addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or
discuss the reasons for their dissent.
to them.
[Indias v Phil Iron Mines (1957)]
•
If a power to decide is granted to a
Sec. 15. Finality of order. — The decision of
specific authority, it can’t abdicate
the agency shall be final and executory after
from this responsibility by delegating
the receipt of copy thereof by the party
the duty to decide the case. It must
adversely affected unless within that period an
personally decide such. It can
administrative appeal or judicial review, of
delegate the power to hear but not
proper, has been perfected. One motion for
the power to decide. [American
reconsideration may be filed, which shall
Tobacco v Director of Patents
suspend the running of the said period.
(1975)]
•
The date of the promulgation of the
Sec. 16. Publication and Compilation of
judgment is the date when the Board
Decisions. — Every agency shall publish and
voted and resolved to admit the
make available for public inspection all
alien. This date can be ascertained
decisions or final orders in the adjudication of
from the minutes of the proceedings
contested cases. It shall be the duty of the
had before the Board. The operative
records officer of the agency or his equivalent
date of the Board’s action is that
functionary to prepare a register or compilation
when the decision was voted and
of those decisions or final orders for use by the
adopted by them as a Board,
public.
regardless of the date when the decision in extenso was prepared,
•
Decision should state the facts,
written and signed. [Neria v
issues and the law on which the
Commissioner of Immigration
decision was based. [Ang Tibay v
(1968)]
CIR]
•
•
•
The word “noted” on the decision
Government agency decision must
does not constitute an exercise of the
state the facts and the legal basis,
Board of Commissioners’ power of
not merely conclusions of law.
review. A decision by the latter
[Albert v Gangan (2001)]
requires a judicious review and
It is not necessary that the court
deliberation as a body of the
make its own discussion of the
proceedings, the evidence and law
evidence and findings of fact if the
involved, the formulation of findings
court is satisfied with the report of
of fact and conclusions of law.
the examiner which already contains
Absent a reversal, the decision of the
the discussions of the findings and
BSI prevails and becomes final after
conclusions. The rule is otherwise
the lapse of 1 year from the rendition
when the court disagrees with the
of the decision. However, in the case
findings of the examiner in which
of a reversal, notice thereof may be
case the court must specify and
sent even after the lapse of 1 year. [Sichangco v Board of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
176
•
Commissioners of Immigration
relevant in the criminal case.
(1979)]
Notwithstanding the fact that findings in
The power to delegate a particular
criminal cases must be beyond
function can be implied form the
reasonable doubt, they cannot be
power of administrative agencies to
conclusive for administrative purposes.
issue rules and regulations necessary
There are defenses, excuses, and
to carry out its functions. [Realty
attenuating circumstances of value in
Exchange v Sendino (1994)]
admin proceedings that are not admissible in trial of the criminal case
3.
Jurisdiction
which can have a blunting effect on the
•
Administrative agencies may only
conviction. Due process should be
exercise such powers as are explicitly or
upheld. Conviction does not ex proprio
by necessary implication conferred on
vigore justify automatic suspension.
them by law. The jurisdiction over the
[Villanos v Subido (1971)]
subject matter of an administrative
•
•
Acquittal in the criminal case does not
agency depends on the terms of the
carry with it relief from administrative
enabling statute delegating powers to it.
liability. Different standards apply. The
Without jurisdiction, the decision
administrative case may generally
rendered by the tribunal is void.
proceed independently of a criminal
Refer to the enabling statute creating the
action for the same act or omission and
agency especially the powers and
requires only a preponderance of
jurisdictions, as jurisdiction is created
evidence to establish administrative guilt
and conferred by law.
as against proof beyond reasonable doubt of the criminal charge. [Police
4. Administrative and judicial proceedings
Commission v Lood (1980)]
arising from the same facts
Note: Can there be a conviction in a
•
The practice in the Philippines has been
criminal case and an acquittal in the
to allow an administrative proceeding and
administrative case? YES. See Villanos
a judicial proceeding to take place at the
v Subido.
same time so long as the 2 actions are
Note: Can there be an acquittal in a
independent of each other.
criminal case and a conviction in the
•
The difference in the proceeding (one administrative, the other criminal) is not legal incompatibility, but merely physical incompatibility. These two proceedings are independent of each other involving different causes of action and therefore can proceed simultaneously. [(Galang v CA (1961)]
•
The matters that are material in an administrative case are not necessarily
administrative case? YES. See PNR v Domingo. The case of PNR also states that while the accused acquitted of the crime imputed against him may claim payment of back salaries during his suspension or reinstatement in case of dismissal, his relief lies in the proper administrative or civil action prescribed by law (NLRC). The trial court has no jurisdiction to order reinstatement since
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
177 the judgment in a criminal case is limited
on the other. [Ocampo v Office of the
to acquittal or conviction with necessary
Ombudsman (2000)]
•
penalties. However, this case also
The criminal and civil cases are
discusses the doctrine laid down in
altogether different from the
Consigna where reinstatement was
administrative matters such that
granted by the trial court because the
disposition in the first two will not
acquittal was for absolute lack of
inevitably govern the third, and vice
evidence and a concomitant finding that
versa. [Mirales v Go (2001)]
the dismissal was unfair. Whether or not the Consigna doctrine should be seen as an exemption is still a gray area. Some
•
Rules of Evidence •
Apply the specific rules of the
say that it is not to be considered as
administrative agency. In the absence
good law, while others argue that if the
thereof, apply the general rules on
criminal case results in an acquittal due
procedure. However, administrative
to absolute lack of evidence, then the
agencies are not bound by the technical
administrative case must also result in an
rules regarding admission of evidence of
acquittal.
ordinary courts of justice. So long as the
Should a public official or employee be
requirements of due process are
found guilty of violation of election laws
observed. Rationale: to allow
or failure to comply with COMELEC
administrative agencies to act with speed
instructions, orders, or decisions, the
and flexibility.
corresponding proper authority shall,
•
Pervasive principle: Technical rules of
upon COMELEC’s recommendation, take
evidence and procedure do not strictly
appropriate action. Notably, it is the
apply to administrative proceedings, but
executive department to which the
this does not mean that they can
charged official or employee belongs
disregard certain due process
which has ultimate authority to impose
requirements.
the recommended disciplinary action.
•
The rules of evidence in administrative
This respects the general administrative
agencies are more relaxed than in judicial
authoriy of the government department
tribunals, in at least three areas:
concerned over its own personnel. [Tan v COMELEC (1994)]
•
5.
(a)
administrative agencies are not
The dismissal of the criminal case will not
bound by the technical rules of
foreclose administrative action. Considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding
Admissibility: Generally,
admissibility.
(b)
Judicial Notice: Administrative bodies may take into account not only such evidence as may be presented by the parties in the determination of the case. They may also make their inquiry into facts at issue, and take
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
178
(c)
judicial notice of certain other
apply such suitable procedure as shall
matters.
promote the objectives. [Maceda v ERB
Quantum of Evidence: Only
(1991)]
substantial evidence is required to support a decision.
•
When findings of fact of administrative agencies are not conclusive upon the
Ocular inspection is not equivalent to a
courts:
trial or presentation of evidence, as it is
a. When the decision was rendered by
only an auxiliary remedy. Parties are still
an almost evenly divided court and
entitled to hearing. But if the issue can
the division was precisely on the
be resolved through ocular inspection,
facts as borne out by the evidence.
there is no prohibition. [Phil. Movie
[Gonzales v Victory Labor Union
Pictures Workers Assoc v Premier
(1969)]
Productions (1953)]
•
•
b. When the decision was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition or
Administrative agencies may act on their
mistake, other than error of
own and use methods which may best
judgment in estimating the value or
constitute substantial evidence. The
effect of the evidence. [Ortua v
court is not required to examine proof de novo. [Estate of Buan v Pambusco (1956)]
•
The SC is not required to examine proof de novo. The only function of the SC is to determine WON there is evidence before the administrative agency upon which its decision might be reasonably based. [Rizal Light v Municipality of Rizal]. However, evidence received at an administrative investigation conducted with manifest disregard of due process may not justify the conclusion based thereon. [Borja v Moreno].
•
Singson (1934)]
c.
When the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. [Manahan v People (1988)]
d. When the findings are not based on a thorough examination of the parties’ contending claims but merely on their position papers. There is no trial through position papers where the adversarial process would ensure a better presentation and appreciation of the evidence. [PAL v Confessor (1994)] Reconcile with Bantolino case:
The order of testimony is within the
decisions based on position papers
discretion of the court and the exercise of
allowed as expressly permitted by
this discretion in permitting witnesses to
the law.
be introduced out of the order prescribed
e. The SC will intervene only in what
by the rules is not improper. Such a
ought to be the rare instance when
relaxed procedure is especially true in
the standard appears to have been
administrative bodies. In the broad
misapprehended or grossly
interest of justice, the administrative
misapplied. [Universal Camera v
body may, in any particular manner,
NLRC (1951)]
except itself from technical rules and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
179 •
•
Rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before
abuse of discretion –
administrative bodies where decisions
capriciousness, arbitrariness,
may be reached on the basis of position
partiality or hostile attitude.
papers only. [Bantolino v Coca-Cola
Question of Policy: Traditionally,
Bottlers Phils. (2003)]
policymaking is not judicial business.
(d) V.
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions •
Judicial review is an effective mechanism to
authority given to any agency by its enabling
Finality of the administrative decision.
•
check acts which are arbitrary or beyond the
•
Exception: When there is grave
Can the doctrines of forum shopping, litis pendentia and res judicata apply to administrative agencies?
YES. Under Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of
statute.
Court, the certification against forum
A generalization as to when judicial review is
shopping shall state that the party “has
available is hazardous. Here are factors to
not theretofore commenced any action or
consider:
filed any claim involving the same issues
(a) If what is involved is question of
in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
(b)
constitutionality, judicial review is
agency, and to the best of his
available.
knowledge, no such other action or claim
Intention of Congress prevails: If it
(c)
is pending therein…”
History of the statute involved.
Res judicata applies to adversary
wanted judicial review to be available, it
administrative proceedings, because they
would have said so.
are quasi-judicial in nature. [United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union v
Nature of problem involved:
Right (should be protected by law) v
Privilege (can be unilaterally withdrawn).
Laguesma].
consideration not only the cases where
Question of Law v Question of Fact. •
forum shopping can happen, but also
The Court is the final interpreter
those involving the doctrine of primary
of law: It depends on whether or not the finding of fact is supported by substantial
•
jurisdiction.
The doctrine of res judicata, although a
evidence. If yes, it is not
judicial concept, may be applied to
reviewable; otherwise, it is.
administrative agencies performing
If the question is on the
quasi-legislative functions.
substantiality of evidence, then it is a question of law.
Litis pendentia can happen, taking into
However, res judicata does not apply in administrative adjudication relative to
Question of Discretion: When
citizenship, unless the following
discretion is granted by law, the
conditions all obtain: (1) The question of
exercise of such is generally to be
citizenship is resolved by a court or
disturbed by the court.
administrative body as a material issue in
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
180
the controversy after a full-blown
requirement. Thus, failure to comply with the
hearing; (2) with the active participation
reglementary period has the effect or
of the Sol-Gen; and (3) The finding on
rendering final the judgment of the court.
the citizenship issue is affirmed by the
Even administrative decisions must end
SC. [Zita Ngo Burca v Republic]
sometime, as fully as public policy demands
Nor does res judicata apply where the
that finality be written on judicial controversies. Non quieta movere: What
administrative decision gives an award
was already terminated cannot be disturbed.
that is less than what the law provides.
[Antique Sawmill v Zayco (1966)]
[B.F. Goodrich v WCC (1988)].
•
The Courts will not interfere with the decision of the an administrative officer, unless the
A. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative
Court is of the clear opinion that such
Decisions
decision is (a) wrong, (b) manifestly arbitrary
•
and unjust, and (c) not based upon any
When a court reviews an agency’s
reasonable interpretation of the law. [Sotto v
construction, it deals first with the question
Ruiz (1921)]
whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If intent of
•
General rule: Courts refuse to interfere with
Congress is clear, no problem. The court as
proceedings undertaken by administrative
well as the agency must give effect to the
bodies or officials in the exercise of
unambiguous expressed intent of Congress. If
administrative functions.
not, the court does not simply impose its own
Exceptions: administrative proceedings
construction on the statute. If the statute is
may be reviewed by the courts upon a
silent or ambiguous with respect to the issue,
showing that the board or official:
the question for the court is whether the
a. Has gone beyond his statutory authority;
agency’s answer is based on a permissible
b. Exercised unconstitutional powers;
construction of the statute. [Chevron v
c.
Clearly acted arbitrarily and without
Natural Resources Defense Council
regard to his duty, or with grave abuse of
(1984)]
discretion; or
When no one seasonably filed a motion for
d. The decision is vitiated by fraud,
reconsideration, the Office of the President
imposition or mistake. [Manuel v
lost jurisdiction to reopen the case, more so
Villena (1971)]
modify its decision. It thus had no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration. The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments of a court or quasi-judicial body reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. [Fortich v Corona (1998)]
•
•
•
There is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction
Compliance with the period provided by law
and protect substantial rights of parties
for the perfection of an appeal is not merely
affected by its decisions. Judicial review is
mandatory but also a jurisdictional
proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
181 abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or
3. Whether the defendant is the proper
collusion. The court may also declare an
defendant. The defendant could either be a
action or resolution of an administrative
private party, or the very administrative
authority to be illegal because it violates or
agency before whom the right is being
fails to comply with some mandatory
applied.
provision of law, or because it is corrupt,
•
4. Whether the forum is the proper forum. The
arbitrary or capricious. [San Miguel Corp v
forum is usually provided for in the enacting
Secretary of Labor (1975)]
statute, but in its absence, the Uniform
When judicial review is valid despite finality of
Appeals Act should be applicable. It is very
administrative decisions:
seldom that the forum is in the RTC, since
(a) Decision is wrong.
administrative agencies are usually given the
(b) Manifestly arbitrary, capricious, unjust
rank equal to or higher than the RTC.
5. Whether the timing for the filing of the case
decision.
is proper. The period for filing the case must
(c) Decision is not based upon any
also be considered in view of the statue of
reasonable interpretation of law.
limitations, as well as the period required by
(d) Administrative body or officer has gone
the statute or rules for the filing of appeals.
beyond its/his statutory authority.
6. Whether the case is ripe for adjudication.
(e) Administrative agency exercised
When a person has not exhausted all the
unconstitutional powers.
administrative remedies available to him, his
(f) Decision vitiated by fraud, imposition or
case is said to be not ripe for judicial review
mistake.
yet. He is said to have invoked the
(g) Lack of jurisdiction.
intervention of the court prematurely.
(h) Grave abuse of discretion.
Although this is not a jurisdictional
(i) Decision violates or fails to comply with
requirement, failure to abide by the doctrine
some mandatory provision of law. B. Availability of Judicial Review
1. Whether the enabling statute permits judicial review. There is no problem when the statute itself expressly grants or prohibits judicial review. But when it is silent, generally, judicial review is available. Since an administrative agency has a narrower view of the case, and its existence derogates the
affects petitioner’s cause of action. C.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 1.
When the doctrine applies
a. The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function.
b. Judicial review is available. c.
The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction.
•
The regular courts have jurisdiction to
judicial prerogative lodged in the courts by
pass upon the validity or constitutionality
the Constitution, judicial review is needed to
of an administrative rule or regulation
offer these considerations.
issued in the performance of quasi-
2. Whether the plaintiff is the proper plaintiff, that is, whether the plaintiff has standing.
legislative functions. [Smart Communications v NTC (2003)]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
182 authority to resolve, or interfere in, a
2. Rationale a.
Legal reason: The law prescribes a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is
procedure.
lodged initially with an administrative body of special competence. [Garcia v
b. Practical reason: To give the agency a
CA (2001)]
chance to correct its own errors [Bernardo v Abalos (2001)] and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts [Lopez v City of
4.
Exceptions
a. Purely legal questions. [Castro v Secretary (2001)]
Manila (1999)].
c.
Reasons of comity: Expedient courtesy,
b. Steps to be taken are merely matters of form. [Pascual v Provincial Board
convenience.
(1959)]
3. General Rule: Where the law has delineated
c.
Administrative remedy not exclusive but
the procedure by which administrative appeal
merely cumulative or concurrent to a
or remedy could be effected, the same should
judicial remedy. [Pascual]
be followed before recourse to judicial action
d. Validity and urgency of judicial action or intervention. [Paat v CA (1997)]
can be initiated. [Pascual v Provincial Board (1959)]
e. No other plain, speedy, adequate remedy
a. If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by
Information Technology Found’n v
giving the administrative officer
COMELEC (2004)]
concerned every opportunity to decide on
f.
Resort to exhaustion will only be
a mater that comes within his
oppressive and patently unreasonable.
jurisdiction, then such remedy should be
[Paat; Cipriano v Marcelino (1972)]
exhausted first before the court’s juridical
g. Where the administrative remedy is only
power can be invoked. Premature
permissive or voluntary and not a
invocation of court’s intervention is fatal
prerequisite to the institution of judicial
to one’s cause of action. [Paat v CA
proceedings. [Corpuz v Cuaderno
(1997)]
(1962)]
b. Courts will not interfere in matters which
h. Application of the doctrine will only cause
are addressed to the sound discretion of
great and irreparable damage which
government agencies entrusted with the
cannot be prevented except by taking the
regulations of activities coming under the
appropriate court action. [Cipriano;
special technical knowledge and training
Paat]
of such agencies. [Lopez v City of
c.
in the ordinary course of the law. [Paat;
i.
When it involves the rule-making or
Manila (1999]
quasi-legislative functions of an
Recourse through court action cannot
administrative agency. [Smart v NTC
prosper until after all such administrative
(2003)]
remedies would have first been exhausted. The doctrine does not warrant
j.
Administrative agency is in estoppel. [Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)]
a court to arrogate unto itself the
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
183 k.
t.
Doctrine of qualified political agency: The
Law expressly provides for a different
act of the department head is
review procedure. [Samahang
presumptively the act of the President
Magbubukid v CA (1999)]
(as his alter ego), unless revoked by the latter. [Estrada v CA (2004); Paat]
•
5. Remedy: Failure to observe doctrine does not
Note: Undersecretary is held to have
affect jurisdiction of the court. The only
acted on behalf (as alter ego) of the
effect of non-compliance is it will deprive
Secretary. [Nazareno v CA]
complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground to dismiss. But if not invoked at the
• Exceptions:
proper time, this ground is deemed waived.
• Where the law expressly provides
[Republic v Sandiganbayan (1996)]
for exhaustion via an appeal to the President. [Tan v Director of Forestry]
D. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary Resort
• where the appeal to the Office of
the President was not acted upon despite follow-ups, and in the
1.
When the doctrine applies a.
meantime, the assailed
court
administrative resolution continued
jurisdiction.
to be put in effect. [Ass’n of Phil.
b.
Coconut Authority]
c. d.
n. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction. [Republic v Sandiganbayan]
o. Administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. [Paat]
p. Resort to administrative remedy will amount to a nullification of a claim. [DAR v Apex Investment (2003); Paat]
q. No administrative review provided by law. [Estrada]
r.
Issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies rendered moot. [Estrada]
s.
In quo warranto proceedings. [Garcia]
and
original
The question to be resolved requires The legislative intent on the matter is to The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function.
m. Blatant violation of due process. [Paat; Pagara v CA]
concurrent
have uniformity in rulings.
Subject of controversy is private land in land case proceedings. [Paat]
have
expertise of administrative agency.
Coconut Desiccators v Phil.
l.
The administrative body and the regular
2. General rule: Courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one which requires the expertise of administrative agencies and the legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in the rulings.
It can only occur
where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the administrative agency. It is a question of the court yielding to
the
agency
because
of
the
latter’s
expertise, and does not amount to ouster of the court.
[Texas & Pacific Railway v
Abilene (1907)]
•
It is the recent jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases that demand the special competence of administrative agencies. It
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
184 may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case,
4.
Effect
•
which means that the matter involved is
the
determination of the case requires the
suspension until after the matters within the
expertise,
competence of the administrative agency are
specialized
skills
and
knowledge of the proper administrative bodies
because
technical
matters
•
proceeding
before
of
a
court.
under
•
3.
Exceptions
a. If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction. [Texas]
b. When the issue is not within the competence
administrative
E.
determination.
[Philippine
and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged [Joya v PCGG (1993); Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)] •
The technical rules on standing comes from the general doctrine of separation of powers as there is a need for an actual case or controversy before judicial review
question that does not require specialized
v CA (1995)]
The
1. Meaning: Legal standing means a personal
When the issue involved is clearly a factual
the exercise of primary jurisdiction. [Conrad
an
Standing to Challenge
Global Communications v Relova (1980)]
skills and knowledge for resolution to justify
in
Veterans Bank v CA (2000)]
of the administrative body to act on. [Phil
c.
vested
proceedings are not a continuation of the
agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass
Sison (2004)]
is
determine
less original and exclusive as the judicial
It is presumed that an administrative
committed in its forum [Caballes v
matters
to
court’s jurisdiction in such a case is not any
Enterprises v CA (1990)]
correctly, or correct any previous error
jurisdiction
subject to challenge in the courts.
[Industrial
upon a matter, would decide the same
primary
administrative agency, such determination is
a
within the special competence of an body”.
While
preliminary
regulatory scheme, have been placed administrative
If jurisdiction over a controversy is initially
order. [Viadad v RTC (1993)]
enforcement of the claim requires the which,
its
proceedings, this is in the interest of good
the courts, and comes into play whenever issues
only
for while no prejudicial question arises in civil
The
where a claim is originally cognizable in
of
but
outcome of the administrative proceedings;
doctrine of primary jurisdiction “applies
resolution
case
action on the case before it pending the final
even though the matter is within the jurisdiction
the
competence, the court should suspend its
a
remedy will be supplied by the courts proper
of
lodged with an administrative body of special
then relief must first be obtained in an administrative
dismissal
threshed out and determined. [Industrial]
or
intricate questions of facts are involved,
•
Application of the doctrine does not call for
also judicial in character. However, if the
becomes available. •
Standing as opposed to real party-ininterest: the former is a constitutional law concept which only concerns the
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
185 petitioner, while the latter is a concept in
to suffer a legal injury or wrong from, the
procedural law which concerns both the
administrative action has standing to seek
petitioner/plaintiff
judicial intervention.
and
the
respondent/defendant.
•
The party must have personal and substantial interest.
2.
distinguished from mere incidental interest.
standing
[Joya v PCGG (1993)]
• Philippine law
Interest is: • Personal, - Except: taxpayers; voters; legislators; class suits. • Substantial
American law Challenged action caused injury in fact, economic or otherwise; [Assoc of Data Processing v Camp (1970)] i.e. concrete/particularized and actual/imminent, not conjectural/hypothetical. [Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992)] Interest sought to be protected is arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question [Assoc of Data Processing] Causal connection between the injury and the action complained of: Injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. [Lujan]
Direct injury
Injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. [Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare (1976); Lujan] Petitioner himself be among the injured; i.e. what is alleged is personal stake, not merely a specialized interest. [Sierra Club v Morton (1972)]
3.
When standing given •
“Interest” is material interest, as
Philippine law on standing v American law on
Only the proper party whose legal rights have been adversely affected by, and who stands
The
issue
of
standing
is
a
procedural
technicality which may be waived if the issue is of transcendental importance to the public [Kilosbayan v Guingona (1994)]
•
One who is directly affected by, and whose interest is immediate and substantial in, the controversy has the standing to sue. A party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant
an
invocation
of
the
court's
jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers in his behalf. [KMU v Garcia (1994)]
•
Kinds:
a. Taxpayers: A taxpayer’s suit is generally allowed to restrain the government from spending alleged
public funds to
be
for a purpose
illegal.
[Lozada
v
COMELEC (1983)] A taxpayer’s suit is not allowed to compel the spending of public funds. [Occena v COMELEC]
b. Voters: A voter who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. [Lozada] c.
Members of Congress
d. Class suit: The subject matter of a class suit should be one of common and general interest, and the plaintiffs should be numerous and representative enough
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
186 to ensure full protection of all concerned
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
interests. [Oposa v Factoran (1993)]
applies only where the administrative agency
e. Consumers: Consumers can challenge
f.
exercises
areas affecting their interests.
making or quasi-legislative.
Competitors: A competitor has legal
where what is assailed is the validity or
standing to challenge the official action of
constitutionality of a rule or regulation
an administrative agency which favors a
issued by the administrative agency in
competing entity.
the performance of its quasi-legislative
Under
RA
association,
1125, or
a
corporation
Appeals. [Ursal v CTA (1957)]
a.
To prevent courts, thru avoidance of
administrative policies. b.
as to assure that concrete adverseness
To
from
judicial
concrete way or the imminence of the
for illumination of difficult constitutional
effect is demonstrable.
The question as to real
party-in-interest, on the other hand, is
3. Two-fold test for a controversy to be ripe
“whether he is the party who would be
[Abbot]
benefited or injured by the judgment, or
a.
the ‘party’ entitled to the avails of the
Fitness
of
the
issue
for
judicial
decision.
Moreover, standing is an issue
b.
when constitutional issues are involved.
Hardship to the parties of withholding such court action.
[Kilosbayan v Morato (1995)] G. Mootness
Ripeness
VI.
When doctrine applied of
the
administrative
body’s
decision.
b. Judicial review available/appropriate. c.
agencies
formalized and its effect is felt in a
upon which the court so largely depends
Finality
protect
interference until a decision has been
which sharpens the presentation of issues
a.
have same.
themselves in abstract agreement over
stake in the outcome of the controversy
1.
the
premature adjudication, from entangling
The question in standing is “whether such parties have alleged such a personal
F.
However,
courts
upon
rule-
2. Purpose [Abbot Laboratories v Gardner (1967)]
suit.”
regular pass
not
adversely
Collector may appeal to the Court of Tax
questions.”
to
and
[Smart v NTC (2003)]
person,
affected by a decision or ruling of the
•
the
jurisdiction only
function,
or
adjudicatory
When standing not given
•
quasi-judicial
the validity of administrative actions in
function, 4.
its
Administrative agency exercising its rulemaking or quasi-legislative function
•
Modes of Judicial Review Except when the Constitution requires or allows it, judicial review may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses. Thus, the law may provide that a determination made by an administrative
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
187 agency shall be final and irreviewable. In such a
•
case, there is no violation of due process.
•
The Constitution uses the word may, meaning review is not mandatory but only discretionary.
•
However, 2nd paragraph of Sec.1, Art. 8 of the
Classes of methods of obtaining judicial review: (1) Statutory v Non-statutory:
1987 Constitution, which provides that the judicial
•
power includes the power of the courts of justice
Statutory methods are available pursuant to specific statutory provisions.
to determine WON there has been a grave abuse •
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Non-statutory methods are those taken
jurisdiction on the part of any government agency
when there is no express statute granting
or instrumentality, clearly means that judicial
review, and relief is obtained by means of
review of administrative decisions cannot be
the common law remedies or by the
denied the courts when there is an allegation of
prerogative
grave abuse of discretion.
mandamus, habeas corpus, quo warranto
writs
of
certiorari,
or prohibition. •
1987 Consti, Art IX-A, Sec 7. Each Commission
If statutory methods for judicial review
shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members
are
available,
they
are
ordinarily
any case or matter brought before it within 60 days
exclusive, and the use of non-statutory
from the date of its submission for decision or
methods will not likely be permitted. (2) Direct v Collateral:
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted
•
for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
Direct attacks are those which attempt to
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
question in subsequent proceedings the
rules of the Commission or by the Commission
administrative
itself.
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion,
Unless
otherwise
provided
by
this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
each
Commission
may
be
brought
to
action
for
lack
of
etc.
the
•
Collateral
attack
is
when
relief
from
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
administrative
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
proceeding where the primary objective
action
is
sought
in
a
is the grant of a relief other than the
•
There is an underlying power in the courts to
setting aside of the judgment, although
scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies
an attack on the judgment may be
exercising quasi-judicial power on questions of
incidentally involved.
law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by the statute.
Judicial review
•
Judicial review is not trial de novo. It is merely an ascertainment
of
WON
the
findings
of
the
its
administrative agency are consistent with law,
jurisdiction and protects substantial rights of
free from fraud or imposition, and supported by
parties affected by its decisions. Judicial review is
evidence.
keeps
the
administrative
agency
within
proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, grave abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion, or in
Admin Code, Sec 25. Judicial Review. –
case
(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial
the
administrative
decision
is
corrupt,
arbitrary or capricious. [San Miguel Corp. v
review
in
accordance
Labor Secretary (1975)]
applicable laws.
with
this
chapter
and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
188 Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an
an agency decision.
agency decision may seek judicial review. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought against
the
agency,
or
its
officers,
and
•
all
Within 15 days from receipt of a copy of the
indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court.
decision. •
(4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days
When to appeal:
How: File petition for review.
•
Where to file:
from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal,
In the court specified by the statute or, in the
and with the reviewing court a petition for review of
absence thereof, in any court of competent
the order. Copies of the petition shall be served
jurisdiction in accordance with the provision on
upon the agency and all parties of record. The
venue of the Rules of Court.
petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the 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 and shall show, by stating the specific material dates, that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. 15 days from receipt of the final administrative decision. One motion for reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of It
the
decision
9). Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall exercise: (1)
is
reversed
on
reconsideration, the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. (6) 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. (7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency
Original
jurisdiction
to
issue
writs
of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; (2)
(5) The petition for review shall be perfected within
denial.
BP 129, Sec 9 (as amended by RA 7902, Sec.
Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and (3)
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission
and
the
Civil
Service
Commission,
except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the 3rd paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the 4th paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law.
•
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
Who may seek judicial review:
issues raised in cases falling within its original and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
189 appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant
justice whereby the judgment of a court of
and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials
competent
or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be
modified or vacated by any court of equal rank.
continuous and must be completed within 3 months,
Note that there are cases which held that
unless extended by the Chief Justice.
review by the RTC of certain administrative agencies
•
through the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. •
SC
Revised
Administrative
Circular
1-95
1.
a.
but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special
Mentions only one constitutional body – the
Listing is not exclusive since it provides “among these agencies” – ejusdem generis. SC retains the special civil action for certiorari grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Where the law provides for an appeal from the decisions of administrative bodies to the SC or to the CA, it means that such bodies are co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature and, logically,
beyond
the
Review
under this rule is not a matter of right,
and important reasons therefore (Rule
Civil Service Commission.
•
performing
questions of law are raised.
is
of
provision”, it is applicable only when
administrative
Excludes the NLRC by virtue of BP 129 (as
there
agencies
case
Rule 45: Considered as a “gatekeeper
Grants the CA with exclusive jurisdiction to
if
the
Judicial Agencies to the CA).
amended by RA 7902).
•
in
from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-
agencies.
•
that
of appeal is through Rule 43 (Appeals
judicial functions.
•
however,
quasi-judicial functions, the proper mode
quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-
•
Note,
administrative
final orders of resolutions of or authorized by any
19
and
Certiorari to the SC)
appellate jurisdiction over awards, judgments,
of
Immigration
Simple or ordinary, Rule 45 (Appeal by
provides that the Court of Appeals shall have
decisions
opened,
Kinds
Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
review
be
B. Certiorari
(Rule 43, Rules of Court):
•
on
not
and court martials) is valid.
judicial agencies is exclusive, if such is listed in listed, its decisions can be reviewed by the RTC
(Commission
may
Deportation, Laguna Lake Development Authority,
Authority of the CA to review decision of quasi-
the law or if its charter so indicates. If it is not
jurisdiction
control
of
the
latter.
[Philippine Sinter v Cagayan Electric (2002)] This doctrine of non-interference by trial courts with co-equal administrative bodies is intended to ensure judicial stability in the administration of
45, Sec. 6) b.
Special civil action, Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari)
Rule 65, Sec 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is not appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
190 incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
152 2.
Requisites (Rule 65)
not errors of judgment. [Purefoods Corp v
Rule 43
Rule 45
Rule 65
CA has jurisdiction.
SC has jurisdiction.
The SC, CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction.
Based on question of law, of fact or mixed question of law and fact. (Sec 3) This rules applies to appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions (Sec 1). But this does not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code. (Sec 2) Appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the award, judgment or final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, or of the denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration. Upon proper motion & payment of docket fees and before the expiration of the reglementary period, the CA may grant an additional period of 15 days. No further extension may be granted except for the most compelling reason, and in no case shall it exceed 15 days. (Sec 4)
Based only on questions of law. (Sec 1)
Based on question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
This rule applies to appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA, the Sandiganbayan, the RTC or other courts. (Sec 1)
This rule applies only to an order or act of an officer or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and not for judgments. [Republic v CA]
Petition shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution, or of the denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration. On motion with payment of docket fees before the expiration of the reglementary period, the SC may, for justifiable reasons, grant an extension of 30 days. (Sec 2)
Within 60 days.
Award, judgment, final order or resolution not stayed unless the CA directs otherwise. (Sec 12) Parties are the original parties and the court or agency is not impleaded as petitioner or respondent. (Sec 6)
Judgment is stayed.
Order is not stayed unless a preliminary injunction is issued.
Parties are the original parties who thus become appellant and appellee.
Parties are aggrieved party (petitioner) against the administrative agency and the prevailing parties (respondents).
The court exercises appellate jurisdiction.
The court exercises appellate jurisdiction.
a.
Lack
of
jurisdiction
or
grave
abuse
of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Court exercises original jurisdiction. NLRC (1989); Azores v SEC (1996)]
b. Review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
jurisdiction.
does not include a correction of evaluation of
b.
No plain, adequate or speedy remedy.
the evidence but is confined to issues of
c.
Administrative agency performing a quasi-
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
judicial function.
Grave abuse of discretion is committed when the judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical,
3. Purpose: To set aside or nullify proceedings. 4.
When not applicable
a. A petition for certiorari inquires into errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and
arbitrary
or
despotic
manner.
[Villaruel v NLRC (1998)]
c.
It
has
practice
been of
a long-standing the
Court
to
policy
and
respect
the
conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies. They are
highly
specialized
bodies
that
have
necessarily developed an expertise on their
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
153 specific subjects. Thus, the Court adheres to
The rule in this jurisdiction is that certiorari
their findings, unless there is an abuse or
will lie only if there is no appeal or any other
improvident
authority.
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
[Commissioner of Internal Revenue v
ordinary course of law against the acts of
General Foods (2003)]
respondent.
exercise
of
The only question involved in certiorari is 5.
Cases
jurisdiction, either the want or excess thereof,
•
St. Martin Funeral Homes v NLRC (1998)
and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance
There is an underlying power of the courts to
of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only
scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions of
when the same is so grave, as when the
law and jurisdiction even though no right of
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
review is given by statute. The remedy of a
manner by reason of passion, prejudice or
party is to file a motion for reconsideration at
personal hostility, and it must be so patent
the administrative level, then avail of a
and so gross as to amount to an evasion of
special civil action for certiorari under Rule
positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to
65. In the case of NLRC decisions, the intent
perform a duty enjoined, or to act at all, in
of the legislature was to make a special civil
contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to
action for certiorari as the proper vehicle for
having acted without jurisdiction.
review.
Thus, all references in the law to
emphatically be reiterated, since so often is it
“appeals” from the NLRC to the SC must be
overlooked, that the special civil action for
interpreted to mean petitions for certiorari
certiorari
under Rule 65.
All such petitions must
correction of errors of jurisdiction and not
initially be filed in the CA following the
errors of judgment. The reason for the rule is
hierarchy of courts.
simple.
Police Commission v Bello (1971)
jurisdiction, an error committed while so
While
administrative
engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction
bodies are entitled to great weight and should
being exercised when the error is committed.
not generally be disturbed, there is grave
If it did, every error committed by a court
abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of
would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every
the writ of certiorari when there is such
erroneous
judgment
capricious
This
•
findings
judgment
of
and as
is
facts
of
whimsical equivalent
a
When
remedy
a
designed
court
be
a
its
void
of
judgment.
to
of
administration of justice would not survive
lack
rule.
Consequently,
allowed. an
The
jurisdiction as where the power is exercised
such
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
judgment that the court may commit in the
of passion, prejudice or personal hostility
exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible
amounting to an evasion of positive duty, or
through the original civil action of certiorari. •
a
be
the
exercises
would
cannot
for
exercise
to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
•
is
It must
error
of
Meralco Securities Industrial v Central
enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of
Board of Assessment Appeals (1982)
law.
Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court
Purefoods Corp v NLRC (1989)
to
an
inferior
court,
board
or
officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions whereby the record of a particular case is
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
154 ordered
to
be
elevated
for
review
and
correction in matters of law. •
Cruz v Gangan (2003) Findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected, so long as they are supported
by
substantial
evidence;
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
but
lacking such support, the factual finding
1.
Requisites a.
cannot stand on its own and is therefore not
discretion.
binding on the Court. •
De
Leon
v
Heirs
Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
of
Gregorio
b.
Reyes
No plain, adequate and speedy remedy. Petitioner
must
first
exhaust
all
(1987)
If all administrative decisions were conclusive
administrative remedies, as prohibition is
upon the Court in any event, there would
available only when there are no other
have been no reason at all to offer the
plain, speedy and adequate remedies in
extraordinary remedy of certiorari to litigants
the ordinary course of law. [Cabedo v
who otherwise would have been deprived of
Director of Lands (1961)]
c.
this only and last resort to the courts of
Agency
performs
quasi-judicial
and/or
ministerial functions.
justice. This remedy applies to administrative decisions up to the highest level and includes even a decision rendered "by authority of the
2. Purpose: To prohibit or stop a proceeding.
President." That sacramental phrase does not remove
a
decision
from
the
A preventive remedy – thus, not for acts
certiorari
already
jurisdiction of the Court or inhibit us from
If
fait
accompli,
prohibition can no longer be filed.
reversing them when warranted by a clear
Exception: prohibition can restrain an act
showing of a grave abuse of discretion.
which is already a fait accompli if such act
C.
performed.
Prohibition
is
patently
illegal
and
unconstitutional, and it creates a mischief and dangerous precedent whereby those
Rule 65, Sec 2: Petition for prohibition. – When the proceeding of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceeding in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
in the corridors of power could avoid judicial intervention and review by merely speedily and stealthily completing the commission
of
an
illegality
[Tan
v
COMELEC (1986)] 3.
When not applicable
a. Prohibition does not lie against legislative functions.
[Ruperto
v
Torres
(Unreported)]
b. Prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done, and not intended to provide a
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
155
c.
remedy for an act already accomplished.
based
[Simon, Jr. v CHR (1994)]
required to justify judicial intervention
Prohibition is granted only where no
before the termination of the deportation
other
proceedings, the judgment reached by
remedy,
which
is
sufficient,
is
another and complete remedy at law is
suffering
generally
substantial legal error.
sufficient
reason
for
Hiong
General rule
v
Deportation
Board
is that
the
Deportation
Board has original jurisdiction to resolve the issue of citizenship. citizenship
will
not
Mere claim of
divest
it
of
its
jurisdiction. Exception is when there is substantial or conclusive proof to support the claim of citizenship, in which case the court, using its sound discretion, may allow intervention. effect
of
prohibition
granting
is
to
the
writ
suspend
of the
resolution of the issue of the citizenship in the judicial proceeding.
1.
Co v Deportation Board (1977) When
the
evidence
submitted
by
a
respondent in deportation proceedings is conclusive of his citizenship, his right to immediate review should be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. Question of alienage should be decided first in a judicial
the
termed
corrosion
as of
The petitioner shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the 3rd paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
administrative proceeding pending the
•
from
be
Rule 65, Sec 3. Petition for mandamus. – When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.
(1955)
The
may
evidence
D. Mandamus
Cases Chua
court
of
[Paredes v CA
(1996)]
•
quantum
the
a
lower
the
available to afford redress. That there is
dismissing the writ.
4.
on
proceeding,
administrative determination
suspending
proceedings. is
allowable
the
Judicial when
the
courts themselves believe that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. The question is whether,
Requisites a.
Public officer or agency has a positive duty that is ministerial. Exception: Mandamus will lie against a discretionary duty when the official or agency refuses to exercise the duty itself. Discretion means the power or right conferred upon the office by law of acting officially
under
certain
circumstances
according to the dictates of his judgment and conscience
and
not
controlled
by
the
judgment of conscience of others. [Meralco v Savellano (1982)] A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
156 given state of facts, in a prescribed manner,
court.
in obedience to the mandate of a legal
public officer, and gives him the right to
authority, without regard to or the exercise of
decide
his own judgment upon the propriety or
performed, such duty is discretionary and not
impropriety of the act done. [Meralco]
ministerial. [Blanco v Board of Examiners
Duty to ascertain facts is discretionary.
(1924)]
Duty
to
act
after
the
facts
have
been
ascertained is ministerial. [Tan v Veterans Backpay Commission (1959)] b.
how or when the duty shall be
Exceptions:
When
mandamus
lies
to
compel performance of discretionary duties.
a. There is grave abuse of discretion
Right of petitioner is clear and controlling.
where the actuations are tantamount to
Mandamus can be availed of only by the
a willful refusal to perform a duty
party who has a direct legal interest in the
specifically required by law.
right sought to be enforced.
b. Where such discretion of the court can
Exception: If the question is one of public
be legally exercised in only one way
right and the object of mandamus is to
and it refuses to act, mandamus will lie
procure the performance of a public duty, it is
to compel the court to exercise it.
sufficient to show that the petitioner is a
[People v Orias]
citizen even if he has not special interest in c.
If the law imposes a duty upon a
c.
To
prevent
a
failure
of
justice
or
the result. [Tañada v Tuvera (1985)]
irreparable injury where there is a clear
No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
legal right and there is an absence of
Mandamus is premature if there are
any adequate remedy; where there is
administrative
no appeal; or when such remedy of
petitioner.
remedies [Perez
v
available City
to
Mayor
the of
Cabanatuan (1961)]
appeal is inadequate. [Orias]
d. To prevent an abuse of discretion or to
Exception: Where the case involves only
correct an arbitrary action which does
legal questions, the litigant need not exhaust
not amount to exercise of discretion.
all administrative remedies before mandamus
[Orias]
can be sought. [Español v The Chairman of
e. Where there has been grave abuse of
the PVA (1985)]
discretion,
manifest
injustice,
or
palpable excess of authority, in which
2. Purpose: To compel a party to perform an act
case the respondent can be ordered to
arising out of a positive duty enjoined by law.
act in a particular manner, especially where a constitutional right has been
3.
When not applicable
violated.
a. The writ of mandamus will not issue to
(1987)]
control or review the exercise of discretion of
f.
Privilege
[Kant
is
Wong
distinguishable
v
PCGG
from
a
a public officer. Where the law imposes upon
matter
a public officer the right and duty to exercise
demandable if denied. The courts may
judgment, reference to any matter to which
not grant the writ of mandamus to
he is called upon to act, it is his judgment
secure said privilege.
that is to be exercised and not that of the
Guzman (2004)]
of
right,
the
latter
being
[PRC v De
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
157 b. Mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance
petition shall be filed not later than 60 days from the notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
of a visa. Issuance of a visa is not a mater of course
since
it
involves
the
exercise
of
discretion on the part of the consular officer as to the question if the entry of the applicant would be contrary to public safety. [Ng Gioc
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court Appeals.
Liu v Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1950)]
c.
Mandamus will lie only to compel the board or officer to take some action when it refuses to BUT will not attempt to prescribe the action to be taken and thereby control the discretion or
judgment
of
the
board
or
officer.
[Policarpio v Phil Veterans Board (1956)]
d. Mandamus does not lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct. In these cases, the proper
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. (As amended by A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC, September 1, 2000)
remedy is specific performance. [Province of Pangasinan v Reparations Commission (1977)]
e. While mandamus lies to compel a court to give due course to the appeal which it has
5.
erroneously dismissed, mandamus will not lie
•
to compel a court to dismiss the appeal as
showing that the officer, board, or official
dismiss as an error in the course of the
concerned has a clear legal duty not involving
appeal. [Lapisan v Alfonso]
discretion. Moreover, there must be statutory authority for the performance of the act, and
When and where filed
•
PRC v De Guzman (2004) For mandamus to prosper, there must be a
the remedy is to assign such failure to
4.
Cases
the
performance
of
the
duty
has
been
Old rule: Although Rule 65 does not specify
refused. The function of mandamus is not to
any period for the filing of a petition for
establish a right but to enforce one that has
certiorari
must,
been established by law. If no legal right has
nevertheless, be filed within a reasonable
been violated, there can be no application of
time.
In certiorari cases, such reasonable
a legal remedy, and the writ of mandamus is
time is within 3 months from the commission
a legal remedy for a legal right. There must
of the complained act. The same rule should
be a well-defined, clear and certain legal right
apply to mandamus cases. [Cruz v CA
to the thing demanded.
and
mandamus,
it
(1996)]
•
New rule:
Rule 65, Sec 4, Revised Rules of Court: When and where petition filed. – The
E.
Declaratory Relief
Rule 63, Sec 1. Who may file petition. – Any person interested under a deed, will,
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
158 f.
contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.
[Mirando], where all administrative remedies have been exhausted. [Tolentino v Board of Accountancy]
g. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding. [Ollada v Central Bank (1962)]
2. Purpose: To determine the construction, validity and declaration of rights thereunder. •
•
Contro4ersy must be ripe for adjudication
Note:
Prof. Avena says that while the (1)
Note: An action for declaratory relief must be
determination of any question of validity or
brought in the RTC. It is not among the actions
construction and (2) declaration of rights
within the original jurisdiction of the SC even if
apply to statutes, executive orders, etc.,
only questions of law are involved. [Remotigue v
validity/construction does not apply to cases
Osmeña (1967); Rural Bank of Olongapo v
involving
Commissioner of Land Registration (1981)].
written instruments.
However,
if
the
petition
has
deeds,
will,
contracts
or
other
far-reaching
implications and it raises questions that should be resolved, it may be treated as one for prohibition
3.
When not applied
a. In
securing
a
judicial
declaration
of
[De la Llana v Alba (1982)] or for mandamus.
citizenship. [(Azajar v Ardalles (1955)]
[Alliance of Government Workers v Minister
b. Where petition for declaratory relief is filed
of Labor and Employment (1983)]
after the breach of law took place.
[De
Borja v Villadolid (1949)] 1.
Requisites a.
c.
Subject matter must be a deed, will, contract
proper procedure is for the tax to be paid first
or written instrument in which petitioner is
and
legally interested, or law or governmental
[National Dental Supply v Meer (1951)]
regulation which affects his rights.
to
sue
for
its
recovery
afterwards.
d. Where petitioner never acquired any interest
b. The terms of the written instrument are, or
in the object of the controversy, and enjoyed
the validity of the law or regulation is,
no rights which were violated. [Mirando]
doubtful and requires judicial construction.
e. Where declaratory relief would not terminate
[Santos v Aquino]
c.
Where a taxpayer questions his liability; the
the uncertainty of controversy.
Petition is filed before breach or violation of
f.
Where
the
relief
sought
would
be
the instrument or regulation. [Reparations
determinative
Commission v Northern Lines (1970)]
construction of definite stated rights, status
d. There
must
be
an
actual
of
issues
rather
than
a
justiciable
and other relations commonly expressed in
controversy between persons with adverse
written instruments – since this remedy is
interests. [Mirando v Wellington (1978)]
available only if it is limited to a declaration of
e. Petitioner must have legal interest in the
rights, and not to a determination, trial or
controversy. [Mirando]
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
159 judicial investigation of issues. [Kawasaki v
functus officio and the alien is being held
Amores (1991)]
without authority of law. •
F.
Co v Deportation Board (1977)
Habeas Corpus
Bail renders a writ of habeas corpus moot and academic, as the bail bond gives petitioner liberty.
Rule 102, Sec 1. To what habeas corpus extends. – Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all case of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
Note, however, that in Criminal Procedure, a writ of habeas corpus may still issue despite the granting of bail when there is still effective detention. •
Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag (1989) The release of a detained person, whether
1. Nature: The great writ of liberty is intended as a
permanent or temporary, renders a petition
speedy remedy to secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty.
for the writ of habeas corpus moot and
A person detained upon
academic,
the orders of an agency may test the validity of his detention through the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus,
which
is
a
constitutionally
guaranteed right. 2.
There is illegal confinement or detention.
b.
There is illegal restraint of liberty.
c.
Rightful custody of any person is withheld
there
are
restraints
G. Injunction as provisional remedy
Rule 58, Sec 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. – A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular acts or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
Requisites a.
unless
attached which precludes his freedom.
from the person entitled thereto.
3. Purpose: Secure the release of a person deprived of his liberty, and test the validity of detention as
1. Nature: An ancillary remedy provided to preserve the
ordered by an agency.
petitioner’s
rights
while
main
action
is
pending. 4.
Cases •
Mejoff v Director of Prisons (1951)
2.
Purpose:
a. Prevent the commission of certain acts
The writ of habeas corpus will issue when:
complained of; or
a. An alien has been detained by the DOJ
b. Order the continued performance of some act
for an unreasonably long period of time
for the purpose of preventing further injury.
after it has become apparent that the deportation order cannot be effectuated; 3.
and
b. No criminal charges have been formally made or a judicial order issued for his detention.
In such case, the order of
deportation which was not executed is
Requisites:
a. Plaintiff is entitled to relief demanded. b.
Commission
or
continuance
of
an
act
complained of would probably work injustice to him.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
160 c.
Defendant, is doing, threatens or about to do
such other questions such as state immunity
an act in violation of petitioner’s rights which
from suit and the applicable statutes.
•
may render the judgment ineffective.
A
quasi-judicial
officer
is
usually
immunity from liability to persons who may
an inferior body; if co-equals, the injunction
be injured as a result of an erroneous or
cannot
mistaken decision, provided that the acts
prosper.
[Honda
v
San
Diego
(1966)]
complained of were done under the color of authority and in good faith.
4.
Types a. b.
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff
d.
VII.
Extent of Judicial Review
Preliminary Injunction – To prevent or stop •
defendant from doing something c.
Generally,
laws
creating
administrative
Restraining Order – Life span of 20 days,
agencies and providing for judicial review
after which hearing is then held to decide
may
propriety of the injunction.
Whether
Permanent Injunction – If plaintiff wins the
questions of law, of fact or of both as well as
case,
of administrative discretion will depend on the
injunction
becomes
permanent
(otherwise, the writ is dissolved).
indicate the
the
scope
courts
of
may
that
review.
inquire
into
enabling act. •
Cases •
[Philippine
Racing Club v Bonifacio (1960)]
wants to compel defendant to do something.
5.
given
d. Injunction can only be issued by superior to
General rules: 1.
Collector vs. Reyes (1957)
Questions of law are always reviewable by the courts;
The general rule is that injunction cannot be
2.
Substantial Evidence Rule: Findings of
issued in tax collection. An exception is that if
fact, if based on substantial evidence, are
the collection of the tax is prejudicial to the
conclusive and binding on the courts;
interest
of
the
government
and
of
the
3.
If the decision of a case is discretionary
taxpayer, CTA is authorized to restrain the
on the part of the agency, courts can
Collector from proceeding with its collection.
review if the decision is attended with capriciousness; and
•
Lemi vs. Valencia (1966)
4.
Questions
of
jurisdiction
are
always
The right to the writ is clear when: 1) there is
reviewable as they go into the question
willful invasion of the petitioner’s right, and
of authority to decide.
the injury is a continuing one; and 2) effect of the writ is to re-establish the pre-existing relation.
A. The Law-Fact Distinction •
There is no clear-cut line that separates questions of law from questions of fact.
H. Suit for damages (indirect method) •
There may be cases where the issues raised
Parties aggrieved by some agency action may
may easily be classified under one or the
be able to obtain judicial review in an action
other, but some cases may involve mixed
for damages brought against the agency or
questions of law and fact.
its officials.
Whether or not the action will
prosper will depend on the determination of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
161 •
The problem with these shady areas is that they
are
usually
dependent
on
considering the less specialized nature of their jurisdiction.
the
predilection of the judge reviewing the case.
•
A party challenging an administrative action
If he is inclined to review it, he will treat it as
may direct his attack against the:
a question of law; otherwise, he will waive it
1.
off as a question of fact.
As a reviewing
the agency and granting its powers;
judge though, he must ascertain whether the
2.
agency’s decision is supported by substantial
•
agency’s
An administrative official’s action which is
dependent upon a question of law as to be in
corrected and is not conclusive upon the
substance and effect a decision on the latter,
courts. [Ortua v Singson (1934)]
•
When
the
conclusion
drawn
by
an
question, examine the entire record including
administrative official from the facts found is
the evidence if necessary.
erroneous or not warranted by law, it is a
If the reviewing court is convinced that
question
the
court
may
confirm
findings.
of
law
reserved
to
the
court’s
determination. [Mejia vs. Mapa (1954)]
•
Judicial review is proper where the act of the
Otherwise, it should review.
[Donato v.
administrative official constitutes not only an
Philippine
Association
excess of regulatory power conferred upon
Marine
Officer
him, but also an exercise of legislative power
(1959)]
which he does not have. [People v Santos
The conclusion drawn from facts is a question of law, which the courts may review. [Dauan v Secretary (1959)]
(1936)]
•
reviewable by the court. [Reyes Vda. De Santiago v Reyes (1960)]
The interpretation of articles of incorporation, which
Whether a question of fact overcomes a
involves
a
question
reviewable by the courts.
presumption of law, is a question of law
•
the
based on a misconstruction of law can be
ruling,
•
of
interpretation and application of the law.
substantial evidence supports the agency’s
•
Correctness
question of fact is so involved with and
the court will, in order to decide the legal
•
3.
Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts: Where what purports to be a finding upon a
Validity of the agency action if this transcend the limit established by law; or
evidence for him to do the waiving-off act.
•
Constitutionality of the statute creating
of
law,
is
[Japanese War
Notes Claimants vs. SEC (1957)]
•
The issue of WON an ER-EE relationship exists is a question of law.
[Ysmael v CIR
Non-controversion of a claim for workmen’s
(1960)]
compensation simply means an admission of
Note: There is an alternative view saying
facts
that the question of WON there is an EER is a
and
not
an
admission
of
a
legal
conclusion. [Aboitiz v Pepito (1966)]
mixed question of fact and law, because the court has to examine the facts vis-à-vis the
B. Question of Law •
General rule: Questions of law are subject to judicial review, since the courts are generally more competent to resolve these issues
four-fold test.
•
Inferences
and
findings
of
fact
of
administrative agencies are to be accepted, unless they are irrational or unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
162 whole.
[O’Leary v Brown-Pacific-Maxon
the evidence, must consider evidence not
(1951)]
only in its quantitative but also in its qualitative aspects. For, to be substantial,
C.
Question of Fact
evidence must first of all be credible.
•
A question of fact exists if the issue
[Gonzales
involved is:
(1969)]
•
•
Labor
Union
WON a certain thing exists;
2.
WON an event has taken place; or
question without regard to technicalities.
3.
Which of the two versions of the
General rule: Because of the expertise
happening of an event is correct.
which an administrative agency has, its
Finality is attached to findings of fact of
findings of facts which are supported by
some agencies when these findings are
substantial evidence are accorded by the
supported by substantial evidence.
A quasi-judicial body can determine any
This
courts with conclusiveness, as long as
is but a recognition of the expertise of
there was no grave abuse of discretion.
the agency as to questions in matters
[Suarnaba v WCC (1978)]
regulation or decision.
•
But the courts
Only errors of law, and not rulings on the weight of the evidence, are reviewable by
have the power to review the findings of
the courts.
fact when the evidence on record is not
Customs vs. MERALCO (1977)]
substantial, and whether or not such is substantial is for the court to say.
•
[Acting Commissioner of
Administrative
and
discretionary
functions may not be interfered with by
It is not for the reviewing court to weigh
the courts. This is generally true with
the conflicting evidence, determine the
respect to acts involving the exercise of
credibility
otherwise
judgment or discretion and findings of
substitute its judgment for that of the
fact. But when there is grave abuse of
administrative agency on the sufficiency
discretion
of evidence. The court recognizes that
jurisdiction, there is a justification for the
the trial court or administrative body, as
courts to set aside the administrative
a trier of facts, is in a better position to
determination.
assess the demeanor of the witnesses
Central Bank (1991)]
of
witnesses,
or
and the credibility of their testimonies as they were within its proximal view during the hearing or investigation. [Mollaneda v Umacob (2001)]
•
Victory
1.
which have been entrusted to them for
•
v
One circumstance where the court may
•
The
amounting
court
findings
[Banco
is
of
inclined
fact
official if they thorough
of are
claims,
lack
of
Filipino
to
an
review
v
the
administrative
not
examination
contending
to
based
of
the
on a parties’
wherein
the
not accept the agency’s findings of fact is
adversarial process would ensure a better
when the decision rendered by an almost
presentation
evenly divided court and the division was
evidence. [PAL v. Confessor (1994)]
and
appreciation
precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence. In such a situation the court, in order to determine the substantiality of
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
of
163 •
In
administrative
proceedings,
proof
or
quasi-judicial
beyond
reasonable
doubt or preponderance of evidence is not required as a basis for a judgment, substantial
evidence
being
sufficient.
[Meralco v. NLRC (1991)]
•
In
administrative
proceedings,
the
complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderance of evidence as in an ordinary civil case.
1. Discretionary acts v Ministerial acts Discretionary
Ministerial
When applied to public functionaries, discretion may be defined as the power or right conferred upon them by law to act officially under certain circumstances, according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience and not controlled by the judgment of others.
A ministerial act has been defined as one performed in response to a duty which has been positively imposed by law and its performance required at a time and in a manner or upon conditions specifically designated, the duty to perform under the conditions specified not being dependent upon the officer’s judgment or discretion.
Discretion is the power to make a choice among permissive actions or policies. The very essence of discretionary power is that the person or persons exercising it may choose which of several courses of action should be followed.
Ministerial duty is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion. It is a simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law.
Rather, it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind
might
accept
as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. [Tapiador v Office of the Ombudsman (2002)]
•
Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule.
A
finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge.
This
is
different
from
the
quantum of proof required in criminal proceedings which necessitates a finding of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
Judicial review of administrative discretion v Substitution
case
administrative discretion
will
not
foreclose
administrative
action against respondent. [Velasquez v Hernandez (2004)]
•
2.
doubt. Ergo, the dismissal of the criminal
•
of
judicial
discretion
for
Questions of policy or discretion are reviewable
only
The substantial evidence standard is not
unreasonableness,
departure
modified in any way when officials of an
statutory
administrative agency disagree in their
evidentiary support; and questions of
findings.
wisdom, propriety or expediency are
[Universal Camera v NLRC
(1951)]
or
from
lack
of
for the agency and not for the courts. The
D. Question of Discretion
standards,
for
court
will
not
substitute
its
discretion or judgment for that of the administrative
agency,
but
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
will
164 determine
the
action.
lawfulness
The
of
ruling
of
its an
administrative agency, on questions of law, while not as conclusive as its findings
of
facts,
is
1. When it applies
•
The doctrine of res judicata applies only
nevertheless
to
judicial
or
quasi-judicial
proceedings and not to the exercise
persuasive and given much weight
of purely administrative functions.
especially if the agency is one of
Administrative proceedings are non-
special competence and experience.
litigious and
summary
in nature;
hence, res judicata does not apply.
3. General rule: In the exercise of discretion lawfully
[Nasipit
given, the court will not interfere.
Lumber
Co.
v
NLRC
(1989)]
Rationale: Recognition of the expertise of the agency.
2. Cases
Exception: capricious,
If discretion was exercised in a whimsical,
arbitrary,
•
abusive,
Ipekdijan Merchandising v CTA (1963)
partial, and hostile manner.
To
say that
the
doctrine
applies
exclusively to court decisions would 4.
Cases •
•
be to unreasonably circumscribe the
Laguna Tayabas v PSC (1957)
scope thereof. The more equitable
The erroneous appreciation of the significance
attitude is to allow extension of the
of the facts before the administrative agency
defense to decisions of bodies upon
does not mean that the administrative agency
whom
had abused its discretion.
conferred, so long as their decisions
PLDT v NTC (1995) Courts
should
intervene
in
that
are: 1)
fraud, personal malice or wanton oppression. economic
none
or
of
financial
the
technical
competence
2)
which
3)
habiliments
of
artfully,
a
"question
of
interpretation."
in
It must be a judgment on the merits; and
core technical and economic in nature but less
It must have been rendered by a subject matter and the parties;
of intervening in matters which are at their or
The former judgment must be
court having jurisdiction over the
their disposal, and in particular must be wary
more
been
final;
and
specialized administrative agencies have at
disguised,
have
essential requisites of res judicata
clear showing of serious violation of law or of have
powers
meet the doctrine’s requisites. The
not
administrative process, save upon a very
Courts
judicial
4)
There must be identity of parties,
the
subject
legal
action. •
Dulay
v
matter Minister
and of
cause
of
Natural
Resources (1993)
VIII.
Enforcement of Agency Action
Decisions
and
administrative A. Res Judicata; Finality of Judgment
pursuant
to
orders
bodies their
of
rendered
quasi-judicial
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
165 authority have, upon their finality, the
force
and
effect
of
a
final
judgment within the purview of the
•
otherwise
provides.
[GSIS
v
CSC
(1991)] •
The legislature may aid the enforcement of
doctrine of res judicata, which forbids
administrative determination by providing a
the
penalty for failure to comply therewith. Also,
reopening
of
matters
once
judicially determined by competent
direct
authorities.
subpoena power and contempt powers) are
MERALCO
v
Phil
Consumers
and
positive
sanctions
(grant
of
afforded by provisions for administrative or
Foundation (2002)
judicial processes to compel obedience or
For purposes of res juridicata, a
prevent violation of the determination.
judgment is on the merits when it
•
Administrative functions:
determines the rights and liabilities
•
Administrative enforcement includes:
of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections. Moreover, res juridicata is not defeated by a minor difference of parties, as it does not require absolute but only substantial
Adjudicative function Rule-making function Executive function
Enforce decision.
Dispensing government largess
Dole out or withhold.
Promulgate rules. Issue or withhold license.
identity of parties. With respect to
Focusing on public opinion;
identity of causes of action, this
Revocation;
agencies
Suspension;
performing quasi-judicial functions have the
Refusal to renew license;
implied power to issue writs of execution.
Refusal to grant clearance paper to ships;
Exception: If the enabling law expressly
Withholding or denying benefits;
provides otherwise.
Imposing conditions seizure and sale or
requisite is present whenever parties are litigating for the same thing and for the same contentions. B. Writ of Execution; Mandamus •
General
rule:
Administrative
destruction of property;
If the law is silent, presume that the agency has the power to enforce its
Exclusion and deportation;
decisions
Imposition and collection of fines and
judicial
emanating powers.
from
its
quasi-
v
Hizon
[Apolega
(1968)]
The authority to decide cases (quasijudicial
penalties; and
power)
should
normally
and
Summary enforcement without need for adjudication: •
Distraint of personal property or levy
logically begin to include the grant of
on real property (Commissioner of
authority to enforce and execute the
Internal Revenue);
judgment
it
renders,
unless
the
law
•
Abatement of nuisance (Secretary of Health); and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
166 •
Sequestration
of
ill-gotten
wealth
If officials refuse to implement a final and
The
executory
concerning
judgment,
mandamus.
[Vda.
the De
remedy
Corpuz
v
is The
Commanding General of the Philippine
in
the
dispositive
part
of
the
decision. Where the order of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the order pro tanto has no validity. [Clavano v HLURB (2002)]
or
practice
term
includes the
memoranda internal
or
statements
administration
or
or procedure available to, the public. 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. formulation, amendment, or repeal of a rule. (5) "Contested case" means any proceeding, including licensing, in which the legal rights, duties or
APPENDIX BOOK VII: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
privileges asserted by specific parties as required by the Constitution or by law are to be determined after hearing.
Chapter 1
(6) "Person" includes an individual, partnership,
GENERAL PROVISIONS 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. (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, adjudicate to
cases; licensing
research
institutions
functions;
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.
Sec. 2. Definitions. - As used in this Book:
respect
in,
(4) "Rule making" means an agency process for the
-END-
and
procedures
(3) "Rate" means any charge to the public for a
Execution must conform to that ordained or decreed
the
management of an agency not affecting the rights of,
Army (1978)]
•
describes
requirements of, an agency, including its regulations.
(PCGG);
•
and
with
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
(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.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
167 (11) "Licensing" includes agency process involving
Sec. 4. Effectivity. - In addition to other rule-making
the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension,
requirements provided by law not inconsistent with
annulment,
this Book, each rule shall become effective 15 days
withdrawal,
limitation,
amendment,
modification or conditioning of a license.
from the date of filing as above provided unless a
(12) "Sanction" includes the whole or part of a
different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule
prohibition, limitation or other condition affecting the
in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety
liberty of any person; the withholding of relief; the
and
imposition of penalty or fine; the destruction, taking,
expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The
seizure or withholding of property; the assessment of
agency shall take appropriate measures to make
damages, reimbursement, restitution, compensation,
emergency rules known to persons who may be
cost, charges or fees; the revocation or suspension of
affected by them.
license;
Sec. 5. Publication and Recording. - The University of
or
the
taking
of
other
compulsory
or
restrictive action. of
privilege,
money,
the
existence
of
which
must
be
the Philippines Law Center shall:
(13) "Relief" includes the whole or part of any grant
welfare,
assistance,
exemption,
license,
exception,
or
authority,
(1) Publish a quarter bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it during the preceding quarter; and
remedy;
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus
recognition of any claim, right, immunity, privilege,
published and remaining in effect, together with a
exemption or exception; or taking of any action upon
complete index and appropriate tables.
the application or petition of any person.
Sec. 6. Omission of Some Rules. - (1) The University
(14) "Agency proceeding" means any agency
of the Philippines Law Center may omit from the
process with respect to rule-making, adjudication and
bulletin or the codification any rule if its publication
licensing.
would be unduly cumbersome, expensive or otherwise
(15) "Agency action" includes the whole or part of
inexpedient, but copies of that rule shall be made
every agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief or its
available on application to the agency which adopted
equivalent or denial thereof.
it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and new
Chapter 2
copies thereof may be obtained.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining
Sec. 3. Filing. - (1) Every agency shall file with the
an act which, pursuant to law, is punishable as a
University of the Philippines Law Center 3 certified
crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be
copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on
published in full text.
the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed
Sec. 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. -
within 3 months from that date shall not thereafter be
The University of the Philippines Law Center shall
the basis of any sanction against any party or
furnish 1 free copy each of every issue of the bulletin
persons.
and of the codified rules or supplements to the Office
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent
functionary,
shall
carry
out
of the President, Congress, all appellate courts and
the
the National Library. The bulletin and the codified
requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary
rules shall be made available free of charge to such
action.
public officers or agencies as the Congress may
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public
select, and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs.
inspection.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
168 Sec. 8. Judicial Notice. - The court shall take judicial
the original is in the official custody of a public officer,
notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as
a certified copy thereof may be accepted.
published in the bulletin or the codified rules.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-
Sec. 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise
examine witnesses presented against him and to
required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable,
submit rebuttal evidence.
publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially
afford interested parties the opportunity to submit
cognizable facts and of generally cognizable technical
their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
or scientific facts within its specialized knowledge. The
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall
parties shall be notified and afforded an opportunity
be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been
to contest the facts so noticed.
published in a newspaper of general circulation at
Sec. 13. Subpoena. - In any contested case, the
least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon.
agency
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases
shall
be
observed.
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
Chapter 3
upon showing of general relevance. Unless otherwise
ADJUDICATION
provided
Sec. 10. Compromise and Arbitration. - To expedite
disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial
administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights
Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case
or claims and obviate expensive litigations, every
being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or
agency
refusal as contempt.
shall,
in
the
public
interest,
encourage
by
law,
the
agency
may,
in
case
of
amicable settlement, comprise and arbitration.
Sec. 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the
Sec. 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. - (1)
agency in a contested case shall be in writing and
In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to
shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
notice and hearing. The notice shall be served at least
on which it is based. The agency shall decide each
5 days before the date of the hearing and shall state
case within 30 days following its submission. The
the date, time and place of the hearing.
parties shall be notified of the decision personally or
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to
by registered mail addressed to their counsel of
present evidence and argument on all issues. If not
record, if any, or to them.
precluded by law, informal disposition may be made
Sec. 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency
of
shall become final and executory 15 days after the
any
contested
case
by
stipulation,
agreed
settlement or default. (3) The agency shall keep an official record of its
receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative
proceedings.
appeal
Sec. 12. Rules of Evidence. - In a contested case:
perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be
(1) The agency may admit and give probative
or
judicial
review,
if
proper,
has
been
filed, which shall suspend the running of the said
value to evidence commonly accepted by reasonably
period.
prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.
Sec. 16. Publication and Compilation of Decisions. -
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the
(1) Every agency shall publish and make available for
form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily
public inspection all decisions or final orders in the
available. Upon request, the parties shall be given
adjudication of contested cases.
opportunity to compare the copy with the original. If
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
169 (2) It shall be the duty of the records officer of the agency or his equivalent functionary to prepare a register or compilation of those decisions or final
resolution of reversal within which to perfect his appeal. (3) The agency shall, upon perfection of the
orders for use by the public.
appeal, transmit the records of the case to the
Sec. 17. Licensing Procedure. - (1) When the grant,
appellate agency.
renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is required
Sec. 21. Effect of Appeal. - The appeal shall stay the
to be preceded by notice and hearing, the provisions
decision appealed from unless otherwise provided by
concerning contested cases shall apply insofar as
law, or the appellate agency directs execution pending
practicable.
appeal, as it may deem just, considering the nature
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent
and circumstance of the case.
laws, rules and regulations or when public security,
Sec. 22. Action on Appeal. - The appellate agency
health, or safety require otherwise, no license may be
shall review the records of the proceedings and may,
withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without
on its own initiative or upon motion, receive additional
notice and hearing.
evidence.
Sec. 18. Non-expiration of License. - Where the
Sec. 23. Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency. - In
licensee has made timely and sufficient application for
any contested case, the decision of the appellate
the renewal of a license with reference to any activity
agency shall become final and executory 15 days after
of a continuing nature, the existing license shall not
the receipt by the parties of a copy thereof.
expire until the application shall have been finally
Sec. 24. Hearing Officers. - (1) Each agency shall
determined by the agency.
have
such
number
of
qualified
and
competent
members of the base as hearing officers as may be Chapter 4 ADMINISTRATIVE
necessary APPEAL
IN
CONTESTED
CASES
for
the
hearing
and
adjudication
of
contested cases. (2) No hearing officer shall engaged in the
Sec. 19. Appeal. - Unless otherwise provided by law
performance of prosecuting functions in any contested
or executive order, an appeal form a final decision of
case or any factually related case.
the agency may be taken to the Department head.
Sec. 25. Judicial Review. - (1) Agency decisions shall
Sec. 20. Perfection of Administrative Appeals. - (1)
be subject to judicial review in accordance with this
Administrative appeals under this Chapter shall be
chapter and applicable laws.
perfected within 15 days after receipt of a copy of the decision
complained
of
by
the
party
adversely
affected, by filing with the agency which adjudicated
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision may seek judicial review. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought
the case a notice of appeal, serving copies thereof
against
the
agency,
or
its
officers,
and
all
upon the prevailing party and the appellate agency,
indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the
and paying the required fees.
Rules of Court.
(2) If a motion for reconsideration is denied, the
(4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be
movant shall have the right to perfect his appeal
perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days
during the remainder of the period for appeal,
from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and
reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. If
with the reviewing court a petition for review of the
the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the
order. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the
aggrieved party shall have 15 days from receipt of the
agency and all parties of record. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
170 the grounds relied upon for the 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 and shall show, by stating the specific material dates, that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final administrative
decision.
One
motion
for
reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. It the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. (6) 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. (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. Sec. 26. Transmittal of Record. - Within 15 days from the service of the petition for review, the agency shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the entire records of the proceeding under review. The record to be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all parties to the proceedings. The court may require or permit subsequent correction or additions to the record.
Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads] [Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures] [Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law] [Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law] [Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
Related Documents
Final Admin 2007
May 2020 7
Admin Savings Appendix -- Final
May 2020 7
Cuestionario Final Admin 2
October 2019 32
Admin
June 2020 30
Admin
November 2019 57