LAW 123

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

A2016 FINALS REVIEWER

Michael Trance Nuñez
Mely Ann Emerie Cristobal

2nd semester A.Y. 2013-2014

Prof. Alfredo Molo III

Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016 Page 1 of 29

I. HISTORICAL AND Types of administrative agencies:
CONSTITUTIONAL 1. According to Creation
CONSIDERATIONS a. Statutory agencies - those agencies created by
law (NLRC, SEC, etc.)
Development of Administrative Law as a Distinct Field of b. Constitutional agencies - agencies specifically
Public Law created by the Constitution (COA, COMELEC,
CSC, etc.)
A. Factors for the emergence of Admin. Agencies 2. According to Purpose
a. Offers gratuity, grant, or special privilege (PVA,
a. Lack of Time - the government can no longer cope GSIS, SSS, PAO, etc.)
with the complexities of modern society. The b. Carries out functions of government (BIR, BOC,
solution is to create administrative agencies to BI, LRA, etc.)
provide for delegation of authority c. Performs service to the public (PNR, MWSS,
b. Lack of Expertise - new and highly technical or very NFA, NHA, etc.)
specific problems have emerged that require d. Regulates businesses imbued with public
expertise or specialization for its solution. interest (Insurance Commission, LTFRB,
c. Lack of organizational aptitude for effective and HLURB, etc.)
continuing regulation of new developments in e. Regulates private businesses or individuals
society - the government is too unwieldy to be able (SEC, MTRCB, DDB, etc.)
to concentrate in specialized areas. f. Adjusts individual controversies because of
strong social policy (NLRC, DAR, COA, etc.)
B. Doctrine of Separation of Powers
Admin. Law vis-a-vis Con. Law
 The three branches of government must not
encroach on the powers of each other. Con. Law Admin. Law
 There is no absolute separation of powers because Prescribes a general plan Gives and carries out
administrative agencies have a hybrid of powers and or framework general plan in detail
functions. Treats of the rights of Treats from a
 Administrative agencies have served as the catch the individual government standpoint,
basin for the residual powers of the trichotomy. emphasizes the powers
Without administrative agencies, the system will of government and
collapse. duties of citizens
Prescribes limitations on Indicates remedies for
C. Constitutional Position of Administrative Agencies powers of the the violation of those
government to protect rights.
Defining Key Terms individuals against
government abuse
Administrative Law - part of law that governs the
organization, functions, and procedures of administrative Benefits and Costs of Administrative Action over
agencies; and the extent to which such agencies are subject Traditional Action by the Three Branches
to the control of the courts.
Benefits
Administrative Agency - an organ of government other than  Administrative action ensures greater
the court and other than a legislature, which affects the uniformity and impersonality of action
rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-  Involves functions on discretion with respect to
making. future conduct, and hence, will not be
undertaken by the courts.
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, Section 2 - (4) Agency of the  Ability to enact preventive measures.
Government refers to any of the various units of the  Can perform functions that cannot be directly
government, including a department, bureau, office, performed by Congress due to limitations
instrumentality or government-owned or controlled inherent in the legislative process.
corporations, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.  If Congress fails to delegate functions to
Administrative Agencies, it might lose itself in
the details to the detriment of determining
public policy.

Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016 Page 2 of 29

  Administrative agencies have the time and
facilities to become and to remain continuously
informed.
Costs
 Tendency towards arbitrariness
 Lack of legal knowledge and aptitude in sound
judicial technique
 Susceptibility to political bias or pressure due to
uncertainty of tenure
 Disregard for the safeguards that ensure a full
and fair hearing
 Absence of standard rules of procedure suitable
to the activities of each agency
 A dangerous combination of legislative,
executive and judicial functions.
II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION
Executive Power of the President
1987 CONSTITUTION, Article VII, Section 1 - The executive
power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.
Section 17 - The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
Congressional Oversight
"Oversight" embraces all activities undertaken by
Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence
over the implementation of legislation it has enacted.
It concerns past enactment measures such as:
1) Monitoring compliance with program objectives
2) Determining whether agencies are properly
administered.
3) Eliminating executive waste
4) Preventing usurpation of legislative authority.
5) Assessing executive conformity with
congressional perception of public interest.
Oversight is intrinsic in the grant of legislative power and
integral to checks and balances in the government.
It is limited to scrutiny and investigation:
 Scrutiny based on Congress' power of
appropriation and budget hearings; or its power
to ask heads of departments to appear before
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
and be heard by either of its Houses on any
matter pertaining to its departments and its
power of confirmation.
 Investigation and monitoring of the
implementation of laws pursuant to the power
of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation.
The Ombudsman
CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF MWSS V. VASQUEZ
FACTS: For its water supply optimization project, MWSS sent
out and invitation for bidding of various types of pipes.
PLDPPMA asked for the clarification of specifications of the
pipes. After awarding another group as the winner, PLDPPMA
filed a complaint before the Ombudsman, alleging irregularities
in the bidding process. Ombudsman ordered MWSS to set
aside the results of the bidding.
DOCTRINE: While the Ombudsman has broad
authority to investigate any act or omission which appears
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient, the Constitution and
Ombudsman Act have not intended to confer upon it veto or
revisory power of an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or
officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested. The
predisposition for the use of fiberglass exists is a technical rather
than a legal matter.
As the agency in the best position to evaluate the
feasibility of the projection of bidders and decide which bid is
most compatible with its development plans, the exercise of this
discretion by the MWSS is a POLICY DECISION. MWSS’
resolution approving the technical specifications of fiberglass
should be given weight.
FUENTES V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
FACTS: Ombudsman charged petitioner judge with a criminal
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, relative
to the judge’s act of issuing and maintaining as valid an
anomalously executed writ of execution against DPWH
properties.
DOCTRINE: The Ombudsman may not initiate or
investigate a criminal or administrative complaint before his
office against petitioner judge, pursuant to his power to
investigate public officers. The Ombudsman must indorse the
case to the Supreme Court, for appropriate action, since Article
VIII, Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the
Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and
court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of
Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk.
LASTIMOSA V. VASQUEZ
FACTS: A complaint for rape was filed before the Ombudsman
against a Municipal Mayor. Ombudsman directed provincial
prosecutor to file attempted rape case in RTC. Prosecutor
instead filed an info. for acts of lasciviousness. Prosecutor was
placed under preventive suspension for disobeying the
Ombudsman's directive.
Page 3 of 29
 DOCTRINE: Ombudsman has the power to of that rule shall be made available on application to the
investigate and prosecute act/omission of any public officers agency which adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a
WON such a/o was committed in relation to the public notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule
officer’s performance of his duty. Also, the ombudsman has the and new copies thereof may be obtained.
power to deputize state prosecutors in order to assist in investigation & (2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act
prosecution. Consequently, the Ombudsman exercises control and which, pursuant to law is punishable as a crime or subject to a
supervision power over the deputized prosecutors. penalty shall in all cases be published in full text.
Section 7 - Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules —The
University of the Philippines Law Center shall furnish one (1)
free copy each of every issue of the bulletin and of the
III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF codified rules or supplements to the Office of the President,
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES Congress, all appellate courts and the National Library. The
bulletin and the codified rules shall be made available free of
Legislative Function charge to such public officers or agencies as the Congress
may select, and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover
A. Legislation v. Rule-Making publication and mailing or distribution costs.
Section 8 - Judicial Notice —The court shall take judicial
1987 CONSTITUTION, Article VI, Section 1 - The legislative notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as
power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines published in the bulletin or the codified rules.
which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Section 9 - Public Participation — (1) If not otherwise required
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or
by the provision on initiative and referendum. circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested
parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, BOOK VII, ADMINISTRATIVE adoption of any rule.
PROCEDURE, Section 3 - Filing — (1) Every agency shall file (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid
with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a
certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks
the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within before the first hearing thereon.
three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be
basis of any sanction against any party or persons. observed.
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent
functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section Legislation Rule-making
under pain of disciplinary action. The power to make, Necessarily includes the
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the alter, or repeal laws or power to amend, revise,
issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. rules for the future alter, or repeal rules and
Section 4 - Effectivity — In addition to other rule-making regulations.
requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Plenary in nature Limited to the provisions
Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from of the Constitution, or
the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is statute granting rule-
fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent making power.
danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of May not be unduly A delegated power
which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the delegated
rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make Lays down the policy of Merely fills in the details
emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by the law subject to the
them. completeness of the law
Section 5 - Publication and Recording — The University of the and a sufficient standard
Philippines Law Center shall: Product of legislation Generally has the force
(1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting forth the text of rules will have the force of law of law, provided that it is
filed with it during the preceding quarter; and not ultra vires
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published
and remaining in effect, together with a complete index and
appropriate tables. B. Doctrine of Non-delegation
Section 6 - Omission of Some Rules —(1) The University of
the Philippines Law Center may omit from the bulletin or the The doctrine of non-delegation springs forth from the
codification any rule if its publication would be unduly principle of separation of powers. Since, the complete
cumbersome, expensive or otherwise inexpedient, but copies separation of powers is impossible if not impracticable, the

Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016 Page 4 of 29

law allows a degree of blending of the three powers of
government.
The doctrine of non-delegation is based on the maxim of
potestas delegata non delegari potest.
Delegation is needed because there are details and questions
beyond the capacity of the legislature to determine; and there
are matters that require more specialized knowledge and
expertise possessed by admin. agencies.
What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the
law may be enforced, not what the law may be.
Requirements for proper delegation:
a) The completeness of the statute making the delegation
- the legislature must ordinarily prescribe a policy,
standard or rule for their guidance and must not vest
them with an arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion
b) The presence of a sufficient standard - there must be
adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map
out the boundaries of the delegated authority
Sir Molo's observation - two components are actually the
same. Completeness test already a part of sufficient
standards.
COMPANIA GENERAL V. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
FACTS: Commission ordered Compania to submit a "detailed
report of finances and operations, in such form and containing
such matters as the Board may from time to time by order
prescribe"
HELD: Invalid delegation of legislative power. The
provision complained of does not merely lay down the general
rules of action under which the Commission shall proceed, nor
does it describe in detail what the reports should contain.
Everything was left to the discretion of the Commissioners,
which is unrestrained as to when it shall act, why it shall act
and what it shall act upon.
US V. ANG TANG HO
FACTS: Ho found guilty for selling 1 ganta of rice for a price
higher than fixed under EO 53 (80 cents vs 63 cents), which
was promulgated by the Gov-Gen pursuant to Act No.2868
authorizing him to fix price at which rice can be sold under
extraordinary circumstances.
DOCTRINE: Certain portions of the Act
unconstitutional since it left to the discretion of the Gov-Gen
the fixing of price of rice and making any violations to it a
crime. EO was a delegation of a delegated power, thus in
violation of the organic law. Only the legislative can enact a law
and it cannot delegate its legislative authority. The true
distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which
necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring
authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in
pursuance of the 
law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid
objection can be made.
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
PELAEZ V. AUDITOR GENERAL
FACTS: The President, pursuant to the Revised Administrative
Code, issued executive orders creating 33 municipalities.
DOCTRINE: Undue delegation of legislative power.
President only has supervision over local governments. The
1935 Constitution repealed the Revised admin code of 1917,
which gave the President power to create municipalities.
Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the
Government the power to fill in the details in the execution,
enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to
forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers,
that said law: (a) be complete in itself — it must set forth therein
the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the
delegate; and (b) fix a standard — the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate or determinable — to which the
delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
EDU V. ERICTA
FACTS: Galo wanted the 'Reflector Law' declared
constitutional and if it were upheld, have Admin. Order no. 2
nullified for being an undue delegation of legislative functions.
DOCTRINE: Reflector law constitutional for being a
valid exercise of police power. As to whether AO no. 2 is a valid
delegation, it was upheld as valid as its provisions were merely
in pursuance of the statute's provisions. There is a valid
delegation of the law if it furnishes a reasonable standard which
sufficiently marks the field within which the Administrator is to
act so that it may be known whether he has kept within it in
compliance with the legislative will.
AGUSTIN V. EDU
FACTS: Agustin assails the validity of LOI 229 which requires
all motor vehicles to have early warning devices.
DOCTRINE: Valid delegation. The standard may
either be express or implied. It can be implied from the policy
and purpose of the act considered as a whole. "Public safety" is
a sufficient standard under this doctrine.
PHILCOMSAT V. ALCUAZ
FACTS: Under a previous law, PHILCOMSAT was exempt
from the jurisdiction of the NTC. With the issuance of EO196,
NTC ordered PHILCOMSAT to apply for a cert. of public
convenience and authority to charge rates. PHILCOMSAT
argues that EO196 failed to set a standard as to the powers of
the NTC.
DOCTRINE: There is no violation because the rate-
fixing power of the NTC is limited by sufficient standards:
public safety, public interest, reasonable feasibility and
reasonable rates. These conjointly more than satisfy the
requirements for valid delegation of power.
SANTIAGO V. COMELEC
FACTS: Respondent Delfin filed a Petition to Amend the
Constitution by People’s Initiative with the COMELEC,
seeking to lift the term limits of elective national and local
officials. In the petition, he prayed that he be allowed to cause
Page 5 of 29
the publication of the petition and obtain COMELEC’s
assistance in obtaining the required number of signatures. The
COMELEC took cognizance of the case and ordered the
publication of Delfin’s petition. Petitioners herein filed this
action for prohibition against COMELEC and Delfin.
HELD: The Court granted the petition. Sec. 2, Art.
XVII is not self-executory, but the supposed implementing law,
RA 6735, was inadequate to cover it. Thus, the provision in the
Act delegating to COMELEC the power to promulgate rules re:
constitutional amendment by initiative was not a valid
delegation. It was not complete in itself and did not prescribe
sufficient standards. The law only covers national and local
laws. Potestas delegata non delegari potest - what has been delegated
cannot be delegated.
ALA SCHECHTER V. UNITED STATES
FACTS: ALA Schecter Poultry Corp, a wholesale poultry
slaughterhouse, was charged for violating the Live Poultry
Code, which was based on § 3 of the National Industrial
Recovery Act (NIRA), passed by the Congress with the goal of
the rehabilitation of industry and the industrial recovery. The
said law empowered the President to enact "codes of fair
competition."
HELD: invalid delegation. The phrase "codes of fair
competition" is too ambiguous to constitute an "intelligible
principle" necessary to limit the president's actions in enforcing
the NIRA. Lacking such a principle, the NIRA effectively
allowed the president "unfettered discretion" to create "new
laws" without congressional approval.
WHITE V. ROUGHTON
FACTS: Roughton was responsible for the general assistance
granted to needy township residents. Without even notifying
the plaintiffs, he terminated their assistance and denied an
application with no explanation why. The District Court held
that procedural due process requires that petitioners should
have been afforded an opportunity to be heard.
HELD: While Roughton may not be bound by the
regulations of the Illinois Public Aid Department, certain basic
eligibility requirements are provided in the General Assistance
statute itself. Fair and consistent application of such
requirements requires that Roughton establish written
standards and regulations. The role of the District Court in this
instance is not to determine their eligibility for general
assistance but rather to review the standards and actions of
defendant Roughton to insure they pass the constitutional test.
C. Forms of Permissible Delegation
a. Delegation to local governments
An exception to the general rule is the permitting the central
legislative body to make such delegation to local authorities.
Such legislation is not regarded as the transfer of legislative
power but rather as the grant of authority to prescribe local
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
regulations according to immemorial practice, subject to
interposition of the superior in cases of necessity.
b. Delegation to the President in Specific instances
1987 CONSTITUTION, Article VII, Section 23 (2) - In times of
war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary
and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless
sooner withdrawn by resolution of Congress, such powers
shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
Section 28 (2) - The Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates,
import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the national development
program of the Government.
c. Ascertainment of Fact
The legislature may delegate its authority to make findings
of fact, and the fact-finding power may be conferred for
putting into effect, suspending or applying the law. But
where delegation to a fact-finding body empowers it to
create the conditions that constitute the fact, the delegation
is invalid.
PANAMA V. RYAN
FACTS: President Roosevelt implemented several EOs that
sought to limit the transportation of petroleum pursuant to a
legislative act by Congress that gave him such authority.
DOCTRINE: invalid delegation. Clear distinctions
must be made between the executive’s administrative authority
and Congress’s legislative power. The former must always stems
from the latter—the executive cannot be allowed to dictate the
policies he is obliged to enforce. He may “fill up the details” but
not amend or expand the general policy provided for by
Congress.
CARDOZO DISSENT: He emphasized that the President does
not perform ministerial functions but also exercises discretion.
As such, the power relations between the executive and
legislative while they must be separated must also allow for
elasticity in order to meet the practical needs of the government
and of the public.
d. Filling in of Details
e. Interpretative Rules
VICTORIAS MILLING V. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION
FACTS: SSC issued circular no. 22 including bonuses, OT pay
and other payments in the computation of monthly
contributions. Victorias objected, arguing that there should
have been prior approval by the Pres. and publication in the
OG.
Page 6 of 29
 DOCTRINE: A rule is binding on the courts as long a
procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its scope is
within the statutory authority granted by the legislature. On the
other hand, administrative interpretation is at best merely advisory,
as it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. Circular
22 merely stated the opinion of the SSC as to the meaning of
RA 1161.
PERALTA V. CSC
FACTS: CSC was presented with the following issue: Is an
employee who was on leave of absence without pay on a day
before or on a day time immediately preceding a Saturday,
Sunday or Holiday, also considered on leave of absence without
pay on such Saturday, Sunday or Holiday? CSC answered in the
affirmative leading to a deduction in Peralta's salary.
HELD: Administrative construction is not necessarily
binding upon the courts. Action of an administrative agency
may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there
is an error of law, or abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the
letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment. In this case, there
was an error in interpretation by the CSC, and so its
interpretative rule was disregarded and the deduction declared
void.
f. Fixing of Rates and Prices
In fixing rates and prices, jurisprudence has held that
the rates be 'reasonable and just' is a sufficient standard.
PANAY AUTOBUS V. PRC
FACTS: PRC filed petition, requesting authority to alter freight
rates at its own will to meet up with the competition.
Apparently, they were losing out to trucks and buses because
the latter would simply ask shippers what railway charges are,
and then offer to ship at a lower rate.
DOCTRINE: The Public Service Commission could
not delegate to PRC what Congress had delegated to them,
which was the power to fix rates of public services. Changes in
rates would have to be proven to be just and reasonable, and if
PRC could alter the same at will, the Public Service
Commission would not be able to determine WON the rates
are just and reasonable because they would not know what they
are in the first place.
KMU LABOR CENTER V. GARCIA
FACTS: DOTC issued a Memorandum Order allowing
provincial bus operators to fix transportation fares without any
approval from the LTFRB. Pursuant to this, the LTFRB also
issued a Circular promulgating guidelines implementing the
deregulation policy of the DOTC. PBOAP, availing itself of the
new policies, then announced a fare increase of 20%.
HELD: There was undue delegation of legislative
authority when the LTFRB gave provincial bus operators the
power to fix and make transportation rates. Rate-making or
rate-fixing is a delicate and sensitive government function that
requires sound discretion, and must thus not be relinquished
to party who would stand to benefit from it.
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
VIGAN ELECTRIC V. PSC
FACTS: Vigan was charged with (1) the black market sale of 2k
electric meters; and (2) charging excessive fees for electric
consumption of its customers. Its books of accounts were
audited and it wasn't given a chance to show the reasonableness
of its rates during the conferences.
HELD: PSC in making findings of fact was exercising
quasi-judicial power and therefore it should have conducted
notice and hearing. Compliance with law must be presumed
hence it should be assumed that Vigan’s current rated were
fixed by PSC after proper notice and hearing. Hence
modification of such rates cannot be made over Vigan’s
objection, without such notice and hearing, particularly
considering that the factual basis of the action taken by PSC is
assailed by Vigan.
g. Licensing
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, BOOK VII, Section 17 -
Licensing Procedure — (1) When the grant, renewal, denial or
cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice
and hearing, the provisions concerning contested cases shall
apply insofar as practicable.
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules
and regulations or when public security, health, or safety
require otherwise, no license may be withdrawn, suspended,
revoked or annulled without notice and hearing.
Section 18 - Non-expiration of License —Where the licensee
has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of
a license with reference to any activity of a continuing
nature, the existing license shall not expire until the
application shall have been finally determined by the agency.
GONZALO SY TRADING V. CENTRAL BANK
Gonzalo Sy Trading requested from the Central Bank of the
Philippines authority to import from Japan on “no-dollar”
basis. After the request was initially denied, the Monetary
Board of the Central Bank granted the request by Gonzalo Sy
Trading, emphasizing that the Special Import Permit granted
was for the Christmas season of 1968 only. In 1969, Gonzalo
Sy Trading wanted to amend the country of origin, but this was
denied by the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank. The
Collector of Customs seized the goods which arrived after the
denial of Gonzalo Sy Trading’s request.
DOCTRINE: A license or a permit is not a contract
between the sovereignty and the licensee or permitee, and is
not a property in any constitutional sense. A license is rather in
the nature of a special privilege or authority to do what is
within its terms. A license granted by the State is always
revocable. As a necessary consequence of its main power to
grant license or permit, the State or its instrumentalities have
the correlative power to revoke or recall the same. And this
power to revoke can only be restrained by an explicit contract
upon good consideration to that effect. The absence of an
expiry date in, a license does not make it perpetual.
Notwithstanding that absence, the license cannot last beyond
the life of the basic authority — under which it was issued.
Page 7 of 29

D. Parameters of Administrative Rule-Making
a. Scope and Reach
OLSEN & CO. V. ALDANESE
FACTS: Olsen applied for a permit from the CIR to export
cigars to the US. The CR refused because the tobacco used was
not from the provinces of Cagayan, Isabela, or Nueva Vizcaya.
HELD: CIR overstepped its bounds. The law did not
define what shall be the standard of tobacco which may be
exported to the US.
PEOPLE V. MACEREN
FACTS: Respondents were indicted for electro-fishing pursuant
to AO 84-1. They now appeal their conviction arguing that the
AO is invalid.
DOCTRINE: The fisheries law does not explicitly
penalize electro-fishing. As it is not banned, the Commissioner
of fisheries is powerless to penalize it. The lawmaking body
cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare
which acts constitute an offense.
LANDBANK V. CA
FACTS: Dispute between feudal landlords and Landbank as to
whether it was proper for the latter to open trust accounts
instead of depositing in cash or bonds the payment for the
redistribution of their haciendas.
DOCTRINE: The power of administrative agencies is
confined to implementing the law or putting it into effect.
Corollary to this is that administrative regulations cannot
extend the law and amend a legislative enactment, for the rule
is that administrative regulations must be in harmony with the
provisions of the law. Landbank went outside of the parameters
of the law when it opened the trust accounts.
OPLE V. TORRES
FACTS: Dispute over the constitutionality of AO 308, creating
a national ID system.
HELD: AO unconstitutional, as a national ID system
is not an appropriate subject of an administrative order. The
creation of such system requires a delicate balancing of various
contending state policies.
CHINA BANKING V. MUTUAL HOME DEVELOPMENT FUND
FACTS: The petitioners were denied their application for
exemption under Pag-ibig Fund because their retirement plan
was not superior to what was provided under the law. They
questioned the revised IRR alleging that the Board of Trustees
exceeded their authority when they required the concurrence of
retirement AND housing plans be superior to the Pag-ibig
Fund.
DOCTRINE: The circular was null and void for
expanding the law as it was against the legislative intent. It is
well settled that the rules and regulations which are product of
delegated power to create new or additional legal provisions
that have the effect of law, should be within the scope of
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
authority granted by the legislature. The law cannot be
extended by the rules and regulations as it must be confined
within the limits provided in the law.
b. Sufficiency of Standards in the Statute
WISCONSIN INSPECTION V. WHITMAN
FACTS: The Rating Act of 1917 conferred upon the
Commissioner of Insurance the power to review the rules,
regulations and riders proposed by the rate-making bureaus,
and to disapprove these if found to be unreasonable.
Wisconsin Inspection Bureau assailed the CI’s final order
disapproving its proposed riders as an undue delegation of
legislative power
HELD: SC upheld the CI’s supervisory powers over
the proposed rates as valid delegation, but set aside the CI’s
final order for not being within the ambit of the law because
the determination of “unreasonableness” was based purely on
the CI’s own predilections on conceptions, with no hearing to
back his findings.
PEOPLE V. JOLIFFE
FACTS: Jolliffe was convicted for violating Circular 21 of the
Central Bank as he tried to export gold without a license.
DOCTRINE: Valid delegation because Sections 2 and
74 or RA 265 conferred upon the Monetary Board and the
President the power to take constructive measures in relation to
the objectives of RA 265 which is to promote a rising level of
production, employment and real income in the Philippines.
These are sufficient standards to vest in the delegated authority
the character of administrative details in the enforcement of the
law.
RUBI V. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO
FACTS: Rubi and other Manguianes filed a petition for habeas
corpus because they are being obliged to remain in reservations
by the provincial board, pursuant to the dictates of Sec. 2145 in
relation to Sec. 2759 of the 1917 Administrative Code.
HELD: The legislature has merely conferred upon the
provincial governor, with the approval of the provincial board
and the Department Head, discretionary authority to execute
the law, as necessitated by the circumstances. The provincial
governor and the provincial board, as the official representatives of the
province, are better qualified to judge "when such as course is deemed
necessary in the interest of law and order.
PEOPLE V. ROSENTHAL V. OSMEÑA
FACTS: Accused assailed the validity of the Blue Skies Act for
being unconstitutional.
DOCTRINE: Public interest is a sufficient standard to
guide the Insular Treasurer in reaching a decision pertaining to
the issuance or cancellation of permits.
INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD & VENEER V. PANGIL
FEDERATION
FACTS: Employer assailed the constitutionality of the power of
the CIR to determine minimum wages, because of supposed
Page 8 of 29
lack of standards or rules on how the wages are to be
determined.
DOCTRINE: The National Assembly has furnished a
sufficient standard in resolving controversies: the CIR shall act
according to justice and equity, without regard to technicalities
or legal norms.
MUTUAL FILM CORP. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
FACTS: Ohio law required that all films intended to be
exhibited in the state need to be reviewed and approved by a
board of censors.
DOCTRINE: The legislature must declare the policy
of the law and fix the legal principles which are to control in
given cases; but an administrative body may be invested with
the power to ascertain the facts and conditions to which the
policy and principles apply. If this could not be done, there
would be infinite confusion in the laws, and, in an effort to
detail and to particularize, they would miss sufficiency both in
provision and execution.
BUSTYN V. WILSON
The license of “The Miracle”, a motion picture, was rescinded
after the NY Board of Regents found it to be sacrilegious and
thus violative of a NY statute.
HELD: The problem with applying this “sacrilegious
test” is, the NY Court’s broad and all-inclusive definition of
"sacrilegious" will censor almost all kinds of motion pictures as
a censor would find it virtually impossible to avoid favoring one
religion over another, and he would be subject to an inevitable
tendency to ban the expression of unpopular sentiments sacred
to a religious minority.
c. Publication and Effectivity
TAÑADA V. TUVERA
DOCTRINE: The clause “unless it is otherwise provided by
law” in Art. 2 Civil Code refers to the date of effectivity and
not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in
any event be omitted. Publication is indispensable in every case,
but the legislature may in its discretion, provide that the usual
15-day period be shortened or extended.
PASEI V. TORRES
FACTS: PASEI wants to prohibit the DOLE and the POEA
from enforcing the DO and Circulars regarding temporary
suspension of recruitment by private employment agencies of
Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong.
HELD: Orders were valid exercises of police power.
However, for lack of publication d filing in the Office of the
National Administrative Register, said orders may not be
enforced, and are suspended pending compliance of the
statutory requirements of publication.
PEOPLE V. QUE PO LAY
FACTS: Que Po Lay was convicted of violating Central Bank
Circular No. 20, in connection with Sec. 24, Republic Act No.
265. Circular No. 20 requires that one in possession of foreign
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
exchange must sell such foreign exchange to the Central Bank
within one day following receipt thereof.
HELD: At the time of Que Po Lay’s conviction under
penal provisions found in Central Bank Circular No. 20, the
Circular had not yet been published in the Official Gazette. He
questioned his conviction: the SC held that in the eyes of the
law, there was no circular to violate. The Circular has the force
and effect of law, and since it provides for a penalty, it must first be
published in the Official Gazette to be binding upon the public.
Judicial Function
A. Source of Power
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, BOOK VII, Section 10 -
Compromise and Arbitration— To expedite administrative
proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and
obviate expensive litigations, every agency shall, in the
public interest, encourage amicable settlement,
compromise and arbitration.
Section 11 - Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases — (1)
In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to
notice and hearing. The notice shall be served at least
five (5) days before the date of the hearing and shall
state the date, time and place of the hearing.
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present
evidence and argument on all issues. If not precluded by
law, informal disposition may be made of any contested
case by stipulation, agreed settlement or default.
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its
proceedings.
Section 12 - Rules of Evidence —In a contested case:
(1) The agency may admit and give probative value to
evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent
men in the conduct of their affairs.
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form
of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily
available. Upon request, the parties shall be given
opportunity to compare the copy with the original. If the
original is in the official custody of a public officer, a
certified copy thereof may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine
witnesses presented against him and to submit rebuttal
evidence.
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable
facts and of generally cognizable technical or scientific
facts within its specialized knowledge. The parties shall
be notified and afforded an opportunity to contest the
facts so noticed.
Section 13 - Subpoena — In any contested case, the
agency shall have the power to require the attendance of
witnesses or the production of books, papers,
documents and other pertinent data, upon request of
any party before or during the hearing upon showing of
general relevance. Unless otherwise provided by law, the
agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of
the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the
Page 9 of 29
 contested case being heard falls. The Court may punish regarding an award for the production of ballot boxes?
contumacy or refusal as contempt. HELD: that in order for an agency to exercise quasi-
Section 14 - Decision — Every decision rendered by the judicial powers, the questions should be controversial in
agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall nature and refer to the administration or interpretation of
state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which laws. Since what was in issue here was a mere awarding of
it is based. The agency shall decide each case within ballot box production contracts, a ministerial activity
thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties shall concerned only with the preparation for elections, Guevarra
be notified of the decision personally or by registered cannot be cited for contempt.
mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to
them. D. Administrative Search and Seizure; Warrants of Arrest
Section 15 - Finality of Order — The decision of the
agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) 1987 CONSTITUTION, 1973 CONSTITUTION,
days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party Article III, Section 2 Article IV, Section 3
adversely affected unless within that period an The right of the people The right of the people
administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has to be secure in their to be secure in their
been perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be persons, houses, papers, persons, houses, papers,
filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period. and effects against and effects against
unreasonable searches unreasonable searches
B. Classifications and seizures of whatever and seizures of whatever
Enabling Power - the power to approve something which the nature and for any nature and whatever
law undertakes to regulate; manifested in the granting or purpose shall be purpose shall not be
denial of licenses to engage in a particular business or inviolable, and no search violated, and no search
occupation warrant or warrant of warrant or warrant of
Directing Power - refers to corrective powers, power of arrest shall issue except arrest shall issue except
assessment, abstract determination such as definition, upon probable cause to upon probable cause to
valuation, classification, and fact-finding be determined be determined by the
personally by the judge judge, or such other
Dispensing Power - consists of the granting of exemptions after examination under responsible officer as
from or relaxing of a general prohibition oath or affirmation of maybe authorized by
Examining Power - also called the investigatory power, which the complainant and the law, after examination
consists in requiring the production of books, papers, records witnesses he may under oath or
for inspection, the attendance of witnesses and compelling produce, and particularly affirmation of the
their testimony and the filing of statements describing the place to complainant and the
Summary Power - the power to apply compulsion or force be searched and the witnesses he may
against a person or property to effectuate a legal purpose persons or things to be produce, and particularly
without a judicial warrant to authorize such action seized. describing the place to
be searched, and the
C. Subpoenas, Contempt persons or things to be
seized.
EVANGELISTA V. JARENCIO
ISSUE: PARGO issued a subpoena to Manalastas,
commanding him to appear as witness in their investigations. QUA CHEE GAN V. DEPORTATION BOARD
Does PARGO have the authority to issue subpoenas in its fact- FACTS: Aliens were charged with violating the prohibition on
finding investigations? purchasing dollars without proper license from the Central
DOCTRINE: Administrative agencies may enforce Bank of the Phils. Warrants for their arrest were issued. They
subpoenas issued in the course of investigations whether or sought to dismiss the charges against them on the grounds that
not adjudication is involved and whether or not probable the Deportation Board did not have jurisdiction to try the case.
cause is shown. They have the power of inquisition; it can DOCTRINE: Under the express terms of our
investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or Constitution, it is doubtful whether the arrest of an individual
because it wants assurance that it is not. A subpoena meets the may be ordered by any authority other than the judge if the
requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is: (1) Within the purpose is merely to determine the existence of a probable
authority of the agency; (2) the demand is not too indefinite; cause, leading to an administrative investigation. The
and; (3) the information is reasonably relevant. Constitution does not distinguish between warrants in a
criminal case and administrative warrants in administrative
GUEVARRA V. COMELEC proceedings. One suspected of a violation of an administrative
ISSUE: May the COMELEC cite petitioner for contempt for nature is entitled to a determination of the probable cause
publishing an article which allegedly influenced its decision against him, by a judge.

Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016 Page 10 of 29

 HARVEY V. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
FACTS: Three suspected alien pedophiles question the
authority of the CID in issuing warrants of arrest against them.
HELD: The Court ruled that the arrests were valid,
and the power of the CID to have them arrested and deported
is constitutional, as deportation is an administrative and not a
penal proceeding contemplated in Article III, Section 2.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. DELA ROSA
FACTS: The Commissioner of Immigration issued a warrant
of arrest for William Gatchalian for violation of the
Immigration Act.
DOCTRINE: To be valid, a warrant of arrest issued by
the Commissioner must be for the sole purpose of executing a
final order of deportation. In the case at bar, it was issued for
purposes of investigation, thus it is null and void for being
unconstitutional. . If the purpose of the issuance of the
warrant of arrest is to determine the existence of probable
cause, surely, it cannot pass the test of constitutionality for
only judges can issue the same.
CAMARA V. MUNICIPAL COURT
FACTS: Inspector was making a routine annual inspection.
When he learned that Camara was using the rear of the floor
he was leasing as a personal residence, which was disallowed by
the occupancy permit, said inspector demanded an inspection
which Camara denied. Camara was charged for refusing to
permit lawful entry for inspection.
HELD: Court granted the writ of prohibition and
held that he had the constitutional right to ask for a warrant.
Routine inspections are not so urgent that they may be done
without a warrant. Without a warrant, the occupant would be
subject to unbridled discretion under the inspector.
SEE V. SEATTLE
FACTS: Petitioner refused to allow his commercial warehouse
to be inspected because there was no warrant. He was
convicted for violating the city’s Fire Code, which allowed Fire
Dept. to conduct periodic searches as often as may be
necessary to ensure compliance with regulations.
DOCTRINE: Camara also applies to commercial
establishments. Warrants are a necessary limitation on the
right to inspect commercial premises.
E. Administrative Sanctions; Fines and Penalties
OCEANIC STREAM V. STRANAHAN
FACTS: Oceanic was coerced into paying fines to comply with
Sec. 9 of Act 1903 in order to depart from NY. The said
section provides an imposition of a fine when a medical
examination upon arrival reveals that a person’s been sick
(dangerous; contagious) since the time of embarkation (ship
owner is obliged to have a med exam before leaving the
country of origin and not allowing sick persons to disembark; a
finding of such violation also requires the ship to return the
said alien where s/he came from and to shoulder the expenses
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
of the same).
DOCTRINE: No lack of due process. Congress has
empowered admin. agencies to enforce tariff legislation. The
three requirements for a valid imposition:
1. Subject must be within the control of congress
2. Penalty must not be criminal but administrative
3. Agency must be expressly authorized by law to impose
such
RCPI V. BOARD OF COMMUNICATIONS
FACTS: RCPI failed to send the telegrams to respondents who
allegedly suffered injury because they did not know about the
death of their relatives.
DOCTRINE: Board did not have the power to judge
corresponding damages since it was outside the scope of its
authority and should instead be referred to the proper courts.
PEREZ V. LPG REFILLERS ASSOCIATION
FACTS: DoE issued Circular 2000-06-010 to implement BP 33.
Respondents successfully nullified the Circular at the RTC on
the ground that it is not in accord with the law it seeks to
implement.
DOCTRINE: For an administrative regulation to have the
force of penal law, it must meet 2 requirements:
1) the violation of the admin regulation must be made a
crime by the delegating statute itself; and
2) the penalty for such violation must be provided by the
statute itself.
INTERMISSION: IMPORTANT NOTES FROM SIR'S 'CIVIC DUTY'
Sources of Administrative Power
1. The Constitution
2. Statutes
3. Decisions
4. Common law
The first three are referred to in determining the powers of
the three branches.
Unlike the three branches of government, administrative
agencies do NOT have implied powers. The power granted to
them must be express.
Equity is resorted to only when there is no applicable statute.
Powers of Administrative Agencies
1. Rule-making
2. Adjudication
3. Enforcement
4. Incidental Powers
The first three reflects the functions of the three branches of
government.
Administrative law cannot make criminal something that is
penal, nor can it expand upon criminal acts.
Kinds of Rules issued by Admin. Agencies
1. Suppletory - executes and implements laws by filling in
details, etc.
Page 11 of 29
2. Interpretations - Construction of ambiguous words and
phrases (note that it will be the courts who will have the
final say as to the interpretation of statutes)
3. Contingent - determination of facts on which the
enforcement of laws may be carried out.
Construction of Rules
1. Strict - if conferred by the statute. Has something to do
with the question of "Does this agency have this power
under the law?"
2. Liberal - if determining the bounds of the law.
Construction becomes liberal once the answer to the
above question is "yes."
Rate-fixing
1. Rate-fixing is legislative if uniformly imposed
(applies to all)
2. It is quasi-judicial if it is applicable to particular
parties only
Publication
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
Cardinal Rights
Ang Tibay v. CIR
The cardinal rights which must be protected by administrative
agencies are:
(1) Right to a hearing + right of the party
interested or affected to present his own case
and submit evidence in support thereof;
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented; 

(3) The tribunal must have something to support
its decisions; 
 A. Sources of Jurisdiction
(4) The evidence must be "substantial;"

(5) The decision must be rendered based on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected;
(6) The CIR or any of its judges must decide all
controversies personally;
(7) The CIR should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties can know the various
issues involved, and the reasons for the
decision rendered.
Vinta Maritime Co. v. NLRC
FACTS: Basconcillo and Robinson got into a verbal altercation.
Because of this Robinson recommended Basconcillo's dismissal,
which was heeded by management.
DOCTRINE: The dismissal was not for just cause, nor
was he accorded due process. Administrative proceedings
require due process but are not necessarily bound by technical
rules. Due process simply means the right to be heard.
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
UP Board of Regents v. CA and Arokiaswamy
FACTS: UP revoked Arokiaswamy's Ph.D. degree due to a
finding that she had plagiarized her doctoral dissertation.
HELD: Respondent was given ample opportunity to
be heard. Disciplinary cases do not require cross-examination.
Furthermore, UP has the power to revoke a degree based on
the principle of academic freedom.
American Inter-fashion v. Office of the President
FACTS: A company's export quotas were revoked after a
malicious finding that it was guilty of dollar salting in order to
accommodate a business owned by a Marcos crony.
DOCTRINE: Decisions of administrative agencies are
given credence and are generally binding on the court except
when such factual findings are not supported by evidence,
where the findings are initiated by fraud, imposition, where the
procedures leading to the factual findings are irregular, when
palpable errors are committed, or when grave abuse of
discretion or capriciousness is manifest.
Pefianco v. Moral
FACTS: Moral filed a petition for mandamus against DECS to
obtain a copy of the Investigative Report after she was
dismissed from service in a DECS resolution, on charges of
pilfering historical documents.
DOCTRINE: A respondent in an admin case is NOT
entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations
of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges
filed against him. He is entitled only to the administrative
decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a
reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and evidence
presented against her during the hearings of the investigation
committee.
Jurisdiction
Administrative jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the
validity and the terms of the statutes reposing power in
them, and they cannot confer jurisdiction on themselves.
Where the jurisdiction is established by the constitution, a
statute attempting to enlarge such jurisdiction is
unconstitutional.
Concept to Limited v. Plenary Jurisdiction
Plenary jurisdiction - connotes complete control over a
subject matter. Plenary jurisdiction is exercised by the courts.
Limited jurisdiction - refers to jurisdiction of a tribunal on
only certain types of controversies. Administrative agencies
with quasi-judicial powers only exercise limited jurisdiction.
Go Tek v. Deportation Board
FACTS: Go Tek was charged for possession of fake dollar
checks. During the pendency of the criminal case, the
prosecutor recommended that he be deported as an undesirable
alien. Go Tek alleges that such was premature because the
possession of forged dollar checks is not a ground for
Page 12 of 29
deportation thus a criminal conviction is necessary for the
Board to acquire jurisdiction.
HELD: SC held that the Board has jurisdiction.
Deportation may be done in 2 ways: 1) by order of the
President after due investigation [regardless of a lack of
conviction in the criminal case]; 2) by order of Commissioner
of Immigration upon recommendation by the Board.
Vera v. Cuevas
FACTS: Milk manufacturers are challenging an order by the
CIR to pull out their filled milk products for allegedly failing to
conform to the proper inscriptions.
HELD: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has
lost authority to take cognizance of a case involving an alleged
violation of the tax code, since the relevant provision of said
code has been impliedly repealed for having lost any tax
purpose. Likewise, the Commissioner and the Fair Trade Board
have no business dealing with investigations of alleged food and
health violations as the same are properly lodged within the
authority of other offices, per RA 3720.
Cariño v. CHR
FACTS: CHR took cognizance of a complaint from teacher
who were dismissed after failing to heed a return to work order
from the Educ.
DOCTRINE: The CHR merely has the power to
investigate as provided for by Art. XIII Sec. 18(1). The matters
it resolved are clearly within the original jurisdiction of the Sec
of Educ., being within the disciplinary powers granted to him
under the Civil Service Law and within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The investigation
by the CHR would serve no useful purpose since if it should
result to conclusions contrary to those reached by the Educ.
Sec., it would have no power anyway to reverse. The only thing
it can do is to refer the matter to the appropriate government
agency for assistance, i.e. the Civil Service Commission.
Simon v. CHR
FACTS: CHR assumed jurisdiction over the case of vendors
whose stalls were demolished by QC gov’t. CHR issued an
Order to Desist against the QC officials.
HELD: CHR has no jurisdiction since it does not
involve violation of civil and political rights (business rights)
and is not a quasi-judicial agency or a court of justice.
LLDA v. CA
FACTS: Caloocan was looking for a place to dump 350 tons of
garbage. Task Force Camarin filed a complaint before LLDA.
LLDA issued cease and desist order. City went to RTC to
declare the order null and void and obtained a preliminary
injunction.
DOCTRINE: While it is a fundamental rule that an
administrative agency has only such power as expressly granted
to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an administrative
agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the
exercise of its express powers. Otherwise, it will be reduced to a
“toothless” paper agency.
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
Delta Ventures v. Cabato
DOCTRINE: RTC cannot issue an injunction against the
Labor Arbiter because it is an incident of a labor case that is
within the jurisdiction of the LA/NLRC.
Arranza v. BF homes
FACTS: BF was under receivership after filing a petition for
rehabilitation in SEC. Subsequently, members of the BF
association files with the HLURB a class suit for BF to provide
their basic needs.
HELD: The jurisdiction of the two agencies is not in
conflict. There are two different cases. But the BF homeowners
correctly filed the case with the HLURB, this is irrespective
with the SEC case. In case this is a monetary claim of creditors,
this should fall under SEC jurisdiction, this case is one of
specific performance.
Notice and hearing
When required?
 Required when the administrative agency exercises
quasi-judicial functions.
 Also required when the agency's acts are particular and
immediate rather than general and prospective.
 Notice must conform with the prescribed provisions, and
a statutory provision may not be altered by a rule of the
agency.
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
FACTS: Petitioner received notice that its vessel was
apprehended and was being charged of a violation of the Tariff
& Customs Code. Petitioner denied, the violation, explained
its side, and requested that if the Collector is not satisfied with
its explanation, then the case should be set for investigation
and hearing. Collector immediately imposed fine of 5k.
HELD: There was a denial of due process, because
petitioner was not given a chance to prove that it did not
violate the law. Even if proceedings are administrative, due
process shall still be observed because it is a constitutional right.
FELIX UY V. COA
FACTS: Gov. Paredes dismissed petitioners from Agusan del
Sur’s Provincial Engineering Office. They filed a complaint
before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which ordered that
they be paid back wages and other benefits and that they be
reinstated. The new governor of Agusan del Sur partially paid
them, but wrote to the COA to clarify whether such payment
could really be made. The COA decided that since the Paredes
had acted in bad faith, he should be personally liable to
petitioners, and not the Province.
HELD: The Court set aside this decision, since
Paredes had never been made a party to the COA proceedings.
He had never received notice of the complaint against him, nor
had he been given the opportunity to be heard and present
evidence in his defense. To hold him personally liable despite
these would thus violate procedural due process.
Page 13 of 29
When not required?
 Notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of the
administrative action where the administrative body is in
the exercise of executive, administrative, or legislative
functions.
 The right to notice and hearing may be waived.
 Administrative agencies are not bound by strict rules of
procedure. A defect in notice may be cured as long as
the party had been accorded the opportunity to be
heard.
SUNTAY V. PEOPLE
FACTS: Suntay was charged with seduction while he was in
San Francisco. The Court ordered DFA to cancel his passport
so that he may be brought back to the Philippines. The issue
was whether Suntay should’ve been granted a “quasi-judicial
hearing” by the DFA Secretary before withdrawing or cancelling
his passport.
DOCTRINE: Due process doesn’t necessarily mean or
require a hearing. When discretion is exercised by an officer
vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as the filing of a
serious criminal charge against the passport holder, hearing
may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the
cancellation of his passport.
BISSCHOP V. GALANG
FACTS: George, an American, was allowed to stay in the
country for 3 yrs. as the prearranged EE of Bissmag Production
of which he is President and GM. On July 10 1959, less than a
month before his permit to stay in the country expired, he
applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of Immigration.
Extension was denied because Immigration Officer de Mesa
received reports that Bissmag is more of a gambling front than a
legitimate entertainment business and that George is a suspect
of having evaded payment of his income tax.
HELD: CA 613 (PH Immigration Act of 1940) is
silent as to the procedure to be followed in the stay of aliens. As
such, the Cts have no jurisdiction to review the purely
administrative practice of immigration authorities of not
granting formal hearings in certain cases for reasons of
practicability and expediency. There’s nothing in the
immigration law which provides that the Board of
Commissioners must render decisions on petitioners for
extension of stay.
POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD V. CA
FACTS: The issue in this case stems from the ex parte order
and writ of execution that the Pollution Adjudication Board
(PAB) issued in order to enjoin Solar Textile Finishing
Corporation (STFC) from discharging untreated wastewater
from its facilities to the Tullahan-Tinejeros River.
DOCTRINE: An administrative agency may validly
issue ex parte orders in the appropriate circumstances and the
execution of the same without prior hearing is not necessarily a
violation of a party’s DP rights; police power and public welfare
justify valid issuances of such.
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
Applicable Rules of Procedure and Evidentiary Rules
 The procedure may be prescribed in the statute creating
the agency or in the rules promulgated by the agency or
authority of law.
 Rules of procedure governing administrative agencies
are to be construed liberally in order to effect the just,
speedy, and inexpensive settlement and disposition of
disputes between the parties.
 Among the basic essential rules of evidence which and
admin. agency has been required to observe is the
principle that evidence must have probative value,
proper allocation of burden of proof, degree of proof,
right to know the evidence submitted or considered, to
inspect documents, to examine witnesses, and to offer
evidence in explanation or rebuttal (Ang Tibay v. CIR)
 Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURES V. PREMIERE
FACTS: Premiere wanted to lay-off its workers due to financial
losses but the laborers opposed because they claimed that it was
not true. Judge conducted ocular inspection and sided with the
employer. Workers opposed because they claimed that they
were not given an opportunity to refute the findings.
HELD: There was no due process because while an
ocular inspection is allowed, it is not the trial nor does it
exclude the presentation of other evidence. Such inspection
could at best witness "the superficial fact of cessation of work
but it could not be determinative of the larger and more
fundamental issue of lack of work due to lack of funds."
ESTATE OF JUAN V. PAMBUSCO
FACTS: Petitioner’s application to operate additional bus trips
on certain lines was opposed by Respondents who claim that
they are already adequately servicing said lines and that
additional services would be superfluous and would result in
ruinous competition. The Public Service Commission (PSC),
after surveying said lines, agreed with Respondents and denied
Petitioner’s application.
HELD: The law has invested the PSC with the power
of supervision and control over public transportation. It has
clothed it with broad discretion in the exercise of that power.
Thus, the SC is not supposed to interfere except in case of clear
abuse. The PSC’s conclusion is amply supported by the record
and is far from being the product of partiality or
discrimination.
RIZAL LIGHT V. MUNICIPALITY OF RIZAL
FACTS: RLIC’s certificate of public convenience and necessity
was cancelled by the Commission for violation of the
conditions set forth therein and a failure to comply with the
directives of the Commission. Morong Electric filed for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity which was
Page 14 of 29
approved. RLIC opposed the application and assailed the
cancellation of its own certificate.
HELD: Both decisions of the Commission (first, to
revoke RLIC’s certificate, and second, to approve ME’s) are
correct. The SC shall not disturb the factual determinations set
forth by the Commission. Its only job is to determine whether
or not there is evidence upon which the Commission’s decision
is reasonably based. The standard of proof which the
Commission should base its decisions on is a preponderance of
evidence.
SESSION 7 PSC summarily denied Serrano’s application for a certificate of
E. Form and Promulgation of Judgment
 Decision should state: facts, issues and law.
 Normally, this will be followed by the agency to the
letter. However, there are times when there is
substantial compliance (therefore not violative of
due process)
Sec. 2(8), 1987 Admin Code. ”Decision” means the whole or
any part of the final disposition, not 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.
Sec. 14. Decision. Every decision rendered by the agency in a
contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly the
facts and the 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 addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or
to them.
Sec. 15. Finality of order. The decision of the agency shall be
final and executory after the receipt of copy thereof by the
party adversely affected unless within that period an
administrative appeal or judicial review, of proper, has been
perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be filed,
which shall suspend the running of the said period.
Sec. 16. Publication and Compilation of Decisions. Every
agency shall publish and make available for public inspection
all decisions or final orders in the adjudication of contested
cases. 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 orders for use by the
public.
Indias v. Phil Iron Mines, 107 Phil. 297 (1957)
Indias was dismissed by respondent company for grave
misconduct. He filed a ULP case before the CIR which was
referred to a hearing examiner. CIR upheld the HE’s ruling in
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
favor of the company. Indias assailed CIR’s decision for being
improper because it did not discuss the evidence.
Held: When a Court affirms the hearing officer’s
decision, a discussion of evidence and findings of fact is not
necessary if the court is satisfied with the report of its examiner
or if said decision already contains a full discussion of the
evidence and the findings of fact based thereon. Due process is
already satisfied when both parties get their chance to be
heard/present evidence/be represented by counsel before the
hearing examiner.
Serrano v. PSC, 24 SCRA 867 (1968)
public convenience without stating the facts and law supporting
the same.
Held: Although PSC’s not a court, it is still supposed
to set forth in its decision the facts and the laws which were
used as basis for either a grant/denial of the application (as per
the cardinal rights in Ang Tibay).
American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents (1975)
The Director of Patents delegated the task of conducting the
hearing to his subordinate officers. The petitioners opposed
alleging it should be the Director who should personally hear
the case.
Held: the Director can do so since there was no
provision in the law which says he said he was not authorized
and that it was to expedite the proceedings pending in the
office. While the hearing officer may make preliminary rulings
on the myriad of questions raised at the hearings of these cases,
the ultimate decision on the merits of all the issues and
questions involved is left to the Director of Patents.
Neria v. Commissioner of Immigration, 23 SCRA 806 (1968)
Neria arrived at the Philippines, the Board of Special Inquiry
no. 1 allowed his admission then the Sec of Justice issued a
Memo which set aside all decisions by the BSI no 1. The Board
of Immigration Commissioners reviewed his case and declared
that he had not sufficiently established his citizenship.
Petitioner was eventually picked up and detained. Neria filed
for a writ of habeas corpus which the lower court granted.
Held: The issue is dependent on the date of
promulgation of the BSI no 1 because BIC can only review
motu proprio the proceedings of BS1 within 1 year from
promulgation. BSI 1 decision was promulgated on Aug 2, 1961,
when it was actually rendered and delivered to the Clerk of
Court for filing and publication. The decision of the BIC was
therefore void because they only acted upon the case and
promulgated their decision on Aug 8, 1962, in violation of Sec
27b of Comm. Act. 613.
Sichangco v. Board of Commissioners of Immigration, GR
No. L-23545, Nov. 7, 1979
All that the Immigration Law requires is that the decision of
reversal of the Board be promulgated within one year from the
rendition of the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry.
Page 15 of 29
Notice of said decision of reversal may be sent even after the
one-year period has elapsed.
Realty Exchange Venture Corp. v. Sendino (1994)
Sendino entered into a reservation agreement with REVI.
Allegedly Sendino failed to comply with the terms of the
contract. She filed a case with the OAALA-HLURB. REVI said
the body did not have quasi-judicial powers nor jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
Held: Powers of the HSRC before were transferred to
HLURB. As such, the HLURB had powers to decide, as stated
in the subsequent executive orders defining the scope of what it
can decide, including the reservation agreement that Sendino
entered into with REVI.
F. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings Arising from
the Same Facts
Galang v. Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA 234
Chun detained based on a criminal and administrative act.
Lower court ordered the release of Chun upon his filing of a
bond, which was contested by Commissioner because he had
issued an exclusion order. Held: Order of release in criminal
case does not apply in admin case. Criminal and administrative
proceedings are entirely different and distinct from each other.
One is not legally inconsistent with the other, and the
prosecution for the former does not entail a waiver of the
action due for the latter.
Co San v. Director of Patents, GR No. 10563, Feb. 23, 1961
Co filed a motion for cancellation of patents issued to Lian Bao
based solely on his acquittal in the Court of Appeals in a
criminal case for unfair competition.
Held: Director of Patents is not bound by the findings
of the CA because the issues involved in those two proceedings
are different and fall under their respective jurisdiction, and
that one cannot be invoked as res judicata because the facts of
the other had not been passed upon in the judgment rendered
in the other case.
Villanos v. Subido, 45 SCRA 142
Villanos, a public school teacher of good reputation, was
convicted of libel in 1959. The teachers she had written the
allegedly libelous letter to filed an administrative complaint
against her. In both hearings on the case, only the complainant
teacher’s testimony was heard. Villanos’ request for a different
investigator other than the superintendent (against whom she
had previously filed a charge of bribery) was likewise denied.
The Superintendent forwarded a copy of the CA decision
affirming Villanos’ libel conviction and a claim that Villanos
“refused to submit to investigation,” to the Director of Public
Schools, eventually resulting in Commissioner Subido ordering
Villanos’ dismissal.
Held: A condemnatory decision in a criminal case,
even if final, by itself alone cannot serve as basis for a decision
in an administrative case involving the same facts, for the
simple reason that matters that are material in the
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
administrative case are not necessarily relevant in the criminal
case. Notwithstanding that findings in criminal cases must be
beyond reasonable doubt, they cannot be conclusive for
administrative purposes.
PNR v. Domingo, 42 SCRA 142
Marfe was charged and later acquitted on reasonable doubt of
the crime of qualified theft. Upon his motion after the verdict
of acquittal was promulgated, TC issued an amendatory
decision providing for his reinstatement and payment of
backwages.
Held: General Rule: Court trying the criminal case has
no authority, in the event of acquittal of the accused employee,
to order reinstatement and payment of backwages.
(Sir asked) Exception: Acquittal for absolute lack of
evidence as in People v Consigna, where the unfair dismissal for
the non-existent offense made the court rule for reinstatement
of the accused based on equity. This is inapplicable to the case
at bar because Marfe was acquitted on reasonable doubt.
Tan v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 353 (1994)
Three separate cases (electoral, criminal and administrative)
were filed in connection with alleged irregularities in the
canvassing of votes in Davao City in the 1992 local and
national elections.
Held: Not forum-shopping because the cases are
independent of one another and the conclusion in one does
not result to conclusion in another.
V. EXECUTIVE BRANCH REVIEW
OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
A. Authority of Department Heads
Sec. 79(c) Power of direction and supervision. The
Department Head shall have direct control, direction, and
supervision over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction
and may, any provision of existing law to the contrary
notwithstanding, repeal or modify the decisions of the chief
of said bureaus or offices when advisable in the public
interest.
The Department Head may order the investigation of
any act or conduct of any person in the service of any bureau
or office under his department and in connection therewith
may appoint a committee or designate an official or person
who shall conduct such investigations, and such committee,
official, or person may summon witnesses by subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum, administer oath and take testimony
relevant to the investigation.
B. Authority of President and the Executive Secretary
Section 17, 1987 Const. (and Book III, Title I, Ch. 1, Sec. 1,
Admin. Code). The President shall have control of all the
Page 16 of 29
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure 17. Promulgate such rules and regulations necessary to
that the laws be faithfully executed. carry out the objectives, policies and functions of the Office
of the President Proper;
Section 26, Admin. Code of 1987. The Executive Secretary, 18. Perform such other functions as the President may
the Deputy Executive Secretaries, and the Assistant direct.
Executive Secretaries. - The Executive Office shall be headed
by the Executive Secretary who shall be assisted by one (1) or i. When Appeal to the President
more Deputy Executive Secretaries and one (1) or more indispensable
Assistant Executive Secretaries.
Demaisip v. Court of Appeals (1959) G.R. L-13000
Section 27. Functions of the Executive Secretary. The Demaisip filed for a fishpond permit over lots covered by the
Executive Secretary shall, subject to the control and same permit issued to Destacamento who sold the land to
supervision of the President, carry out the functions assigned Villanueva. Villanueva sold lots to Buenaflor who built a dam
by law to the Executive Office and shall perform such other on said land. The Director of Fish and Game Administration
duties as may be delegated to him. He shall: ordered that the dam be removed. The Secretary of Agriculture
1. Directly assist the President in the management of the and Natural resources reversed the FGAD and awarded lease
affairs pertaining to the Government of the Republic of the right to Buenaflor. Demaisip thus filed an action with the CFI
Philippines; to annul the order.
2. Implement presidential directives, orders and Held: Action in CFI allowed. Failure to appeal to the
decisions; President does not preclude filing of an action in court. The
3. Decide, for and in behalf of the President, matters not Secretary being an alter-ego of the President, the assumption if
requiring personal presidential attention; that the act of the Secretary has the implied sanction of the
4. Exercise supervision and control over the various units President.
in the Office of the President Proper including their internal
administrative requirements;
5. Exercise supervision, in behalf of the President, over
the various agencies under the Office of the President; SESSION 8
6. Appoint officials and employees of the Office of the
President whose appointments are not vested in the VI. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
President;
7. Provide overall coordination in the operation of the
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
Executive Office;
Purpose:
8. Determine and assign matters to the appropriate units
 Keep the admin agency within its jurisdiction and
in the Office of the President;
protect substantial rights of parties affected by its
9. Have administrative responsibility for matters in the
decisions.
Office of the President coming from the various departments
 Forestall arbitrary and unjust adjudications.
and agencies of government;
10. Exercise primary authority to sign papers "By
Judicial review is the most effective form of control because
authority of the President", attest executive orders and other
it provides an immediate relief to complainant.
presidential issuances unless attestation is specifically
delegated to other officials by him or by the President;
A. Sources of Authority to Conduct Judicial Review of
11. Determine, with the President's approval, the
Executive Action
appropriate assignment of offices and agencies not placed by
i. Phil. Constitution v. US Constitution
law under any specific executive department;
12. Provide consultative, research, fact-finding and
Sec. 1, Art. VIII 1987 Constitution. The Judicial power shall
advisory service to the President;
be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
13. Assist the President in the performance of functions
may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty
pertaining to legislation;
of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
14. Assist the President in the administration of special
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
projects;
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
15. Take charge of matters pertaining to protocol in
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
State and ceremonial functions;
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
16. Provide secretarial and clerical services for the
President, the Cabinet, the Council of State, and other
Sec. 2, Art. III US Constitution. The judicial power shall
advisory bodies to the President
extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this

Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016 Page 17 of 29

Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties transcendental importance. The Court found that the Lease
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority xxx Agreement contract is actually more of a joint
venture/partnership agreement, which the PCSO is prohibited
ii. Statute by law to enter into.
iii. General Principles and Jurisprudence
a. Whether considered Trial De Novo
Trial de novo - form of appeal in which the Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 (1995)
appeals court holds a trial as if no prior trial had Continuation of Kilosbayan v Guingona, but what happened
been held. A trial de novo is common on here is that they now entered an Equipment Lease Agreement,
appeals from small claims court judgments. which the Petitioner claim to be the same as the previously
voided Contract.
Held: this is different and valid under the charter of
B. Standing and Ripeness; Finality of Administrative PCSO. No Standing and not real-parties-in-interest.
Action
Standing Real Party-in-interest
Standing Broader policy concern, Involves contracts done
Whether such parties have "alleged such a personal sometimes brought by between parties, or must
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that parties who have not been involve questions of contract
concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of personally injured by the law.
issues upon which the court so largely depends for operation of law or by the
illumination of difficult constitutional questions." (Baker v official action taken.
Carr) Whether the party has been Whether he is the party who
or is about to be denied some would be benefited or
Ripeness right or privilege to which he injured by the judgment, or
Tests: is lawfully entitled or that he the party entitled to the
1. Fitness test: Case is ripe for judicial review as where legal is about to be subjected to avails of the suit.
issues are involved some burdens or penalties by
2. Hardship test: Petitioner is exposed to sanctions for non- reason of the statute
compliance with rules complained of.

General Ripeness Considerations:

1. Whether there is congressional intent negative to judicial
review.
2. The possibility of the courts entangling themselves in
abstract disagreement over administrative policies due to
premature adjudication.
3. The fitness of issues for judicial determination and the
hardship to parties of withholding court consideration.
Ursal v. Court of Tax Appeals, 101 Phil. 209 (1957)
Ursal, as city assessor, assessed taxes on Noel & Samson real
properties. Cebu BAA reduced the assessments. Ursal appealed
the reduction, CTA dismissed since it was late and he had no
personality to appeal as he was not adversely affected by the
decision.
Held: BAA rulings did not adversely affect Ursal.
RA1125 creating CTA did not grant it blanket authority to
decide any and all tax disputes.
Kilosbyan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994)
PCSO wanted to establish an online lottery system. Berjaya
Group Berhad, along with Filipino investors, offered to set up
the system. The investors formed PGMC to set up and operate
the system. Kilosbayan opposed the agreement between PCSO
and PGMC.
Held: Issue of standing brushed aside because the
majority of the justices considered the issue as one of
Abbot Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 US 136 (1967)
Ripeness Doctrine
Basic rationale: to prevent the courts, through avoidance of
premature adjudication, from:
(a) Entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over
administrative policies, and
(b) To protect the agencies from premature judicial interference
until an administrative decision has been formalized and its
effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.
The problem is best seen in a twofold aspect:
1. The fitness of the issues for judicial decision (is it a
legal issue?)
2. The hardship to the parties of withholding court
consideration (if court review is withheld, will the
petitioners suffer hardships?)
National Automatic v. Shultz, 448 F 2d 689 (CADC 1971)
National Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council wrote
letter to Wage Administrator inquiring on applicability to its
members of the 1966 amendments removing exemption from
statutory minimum wage to laundry services. Admin replied
that it applies.
Held: The issue should be ripe for adjudication—that
issues are fit for judicial decision and the concrete and manifest
hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration—
before the court can take cognizance of the case.

Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016 Page 18 of 29

C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
An administrative decision must first be appealed to
the administrative superiors up to the highest level before it
may be elevated to a court of justice for review.
Exceptions:
1. When the question raised is purely legal, involves
constitutional questions
2. When the administrative body is in estoppel
3. When act complained of is patently illegal
4. When there is urgent need for judicial intervention
5. When claim/ amount involved is small
6. When irreparable damage is involved
7. When there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy
8. When strong public interest is involved
9. When the subject of controversy is private land
10. In quo warranto proceedings
11. When the administrative remedy is permissive, concurrent
12. Utter disregard of due process
13. Long-continued and unreasonable delay
14. When no administrative review is provided
15. Respondent is a department secretary (doctrine of
qualified political agency – alter ego doctrine)
i. Rationale
1. To enable the administrative superiors to correct the
errors committed by their subordinates.
2. Courts should refrain from disturbing the findings of
administrative bodies in deference to the doctrine of
separation of powers.
3. Courts should not be saddled with the review of
administrative cases.
4. Judicial review of administrative cases is usually
effected through special civil actions which are available
only if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy.
ii. Links to Separation of Powers
Judicial review of admin decisions restrict the separation
of powers as part of system of checks and balance. The
exercise of administrative powers can lead to GAD
therefore there is this constant need to see to it that
they do not abuse their powers and stay within the scope
of their authority – intra vires.
iii. Effect on pending case of a ruling finding that
remedies were not exhausted
The premature invocation of a court’s intervention is
fatal to one’s cause of action. However, the judge cannot
motu proprio dismiss on this ground. If the other party
does not file MTD, court will go on with the complaint.
This is NOT jurisdictional. It is an affirmative defense
which can be waived by the other party.
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
iv. Cases
Pascual v. Provincial Board, 106 Phil. 446 (1959)
During Pascual’s second term as mayor, he faced an
administrative charge before the Board for acts committed in
his first term. He moved to dismiss, but was denied, so he
petitioned the SC and CFI to enjoin the Board. The Board
invoked the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Held: Case fell within an exception to the rule that the
issue at hand is a purely legal one. They ruled that a public
officer cannot be removed for acts before his term, because to
do so practically overrules the people’s will.
Alzate v. Aldana, 107 Phil. 298 (1960)
Alzate, a public school principal, requested to the Director of
Public Schools for a salary increase. This was denied, which led
him to file for reconsideration. Before the decision on his
reconsideration was made, he filed a petition for mandamus
proceeding in court, for fear that waiting for the final decision,
even if favorable, would be of no avail after the reversion of the
funds appropriated for the purpose of salary adjustment.
Held: Alzate’s action was not premature, due to the
validity and urgency of the circumstances of the case.
Cipriano v. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291 (1972)
Cipriano, record clerk, filed an action for mandamus against
municipal treasurer Marcelino when the latter failed to pay her
salary upon her resignation.
Held: The principle of exhausting administrative
remedies presumes that a plain and speed remedy must first be
available — appeal to the office of the president is not plain and
speedy, and considering the claim is for the collection of just
P949, would be unreasonable and oppressive to require of
Cipriano.
Corpuz v. Cuaderno, GR No. 1-17860, March 30, 1962
Corpus was charged in an administrative case by employees of
the Bank, resulting in his suspension by the MB and the
creation of a committee to investigate him. The final report
recommended his immediate reinstatement, but the MB did
not agree with it hence it adopted Resolution No. 957
considering Corpus resigned as of the date of his suspension. In
another resolution, the MB approved the appointment of
Mario Marcos to Corpus’ position, hence, the latter instituted a
Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Quo Warranto with
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages with the lower
court. Said petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust all
administrative remedies such as an appeal to the Commissioner
of Civil Service or the President of the Philippines.
Held: Corpus did not fail to exhaust said remedies
because they were merely permissive or voluntary, considering
the facts of the case. Quo warranto proceedings involving
allegations of usurpation of positions in public offices are an
exception to the general doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
Page 19 of 29
 De Lara v. Clorivel, 14 SCRA 269 (1965)
Dispute over timber concessions prompted J & B Co. to file a
complaint before the Bureau but was overruled. He appealed to
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which
ordered de Lara to refrain from continuing operations in the
area under dispute. De Lara defied the order, which led to the
issuance of an injunction by the CFI Manila.
Held: CFI did not commit grave abuse of discretion
despite non-exhaustion of admin remedies because such rule
can be relaxed when there is danger of great and irreparable
damage.
PAAT v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167 (1997)
Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it
is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means
of administrative processes afforded him. The principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, however, is not an
ironclad rule. Its flexibility is called upon by the peculiarity and
uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case.
Quasha v. SEC, 83 SCRA 557 (1978)
MPC sought to convert itself into a proprietary club so it filed
its amended articles of incorporation with the SEC. Quasha
filed for injunctive relief, seeking to annul it in the end. SEC
denied the petition for injunctive relief, and ruled on the
merits of the case. Quasha went to the SC claiming that he was
denied due process. SC remanded the case to the SEC, with the
SEC’s concurrence as well, ordering a full blown trial on the
merits.
Held: The filing of an appeal to the SEC En Banc
within 30 days is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy,
when the denial of the Hearing Officer was rendered just a few
days before the deadline of the event sought to be enjoined and
during the height of the Christmas holidays.
Pestanas v. Dyogi, 81 SCRA 574 (1978)
The Pestanas have a claim when the original owner transferred
land to them. Dyogi had a claim over the land through his
Timber License. Before Pestanas could perfect their title over it,
Dyogi was able to apply for a Free Patent, which was approved.
Petitioners filed an admin case before the Bureau of Lands for
cancellation of the free patent. 6 months after, while the admin
case was still pending, petitioners filed another case before the
CFI to also have the free patent declared void.
Held: CFI case was rightfully dismissed, doctrine of
exhaustion of admin remedies applies. It is a well settled rule
that in disputes concerning public land, where the findings of
administrative bodies as to questions of fact are declared by
statute to be conclusive, all admin remedies must first be
exhausted.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438 (1996)
PCGG issued a Sequestration Order against Sipalay and a
Search and Seizure Order against Allied to effect their
sequestration. The latter 2 filed separate petitions in 1986
which were consolidated and referred to the SB. SB directed
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
PCGG to submit its formal evidence in writing. However,
PCGG filed a MtD in 1993 instead. SB denied MtD.
Held: Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of
admin remedies doesn't affect the jurisdiction of the Court.
The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it’ll
deprive the complainant of a cause of action, w/c is a ground
for a MtD. If not invoked at a proper time, this ground is
deemed waived and the Ct can take cognizance and try it. Since
PCGG filed its MtD 7 years after the filing of the original
petitions, it is guilty of estoppel by laches.
The case also falls under 2 exceptions:
(1) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the
doctrine;
(2) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that
will irretrievably prejudice the complainant
SESSION 9
D. Primary Jurisdiction
Courts will not intervene where a claim originally cognizable
in the courts has been placed within the special competence
of an administrative body.
Requisites:
1. Concurrence of jurisdiction between the regular
court and admin agency.
2. Issue involves technical expertise of the admin
agency.
3. Admin agency is performing a quasi-judicial
function.
4. The legislative intent is to have uniformity in rulings.
i. Rationale
The rationale lies on the postulate that such
administrative agency has the special knowledge,
experience and tools to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact. (Saavedra v SEC)
ii. Links to Separation of Powers
The doctrine does not necessarily allocate power
between the courts and various agencies, for it only
determines who shall first consider the issue, and not
who shall finally consider the issue. Therefore, a
determination by a court that an agency has primary
jurisdiction over a particular question does not
necessarily mean that the court will refrain from
deciding the issue before it; it may mean that the court
has, in its discretion, chosen to postpone its decision
until after the admin body has ruled on the certified
issue. (K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise)
Page 20 of 29
 iii. Effect on pending case of a finding of primary
jurisdiction
Stay of judicial proceedings pending a referral of the
controversy, or a portion of it, to an admin agency.
iv. Cases
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene, 204 US 426 (1907)
Abilene Cotton Oil Co. filed a suit against defendant Texas
and Pacific Railway Co. to recover $1,951.83. It was alleged by
the plaintiff that on shipments of carloads of cotton seed over
the line of the defendant’s road, the carrier had exacted on the
delivery of the cotton seed, the payment of unjust and
unreasonable rate which exceeded in the aggregate, by the sum
sued for, a just and reasonable charge. The trial court found
that the rate charged by the railway company was that
established under the interstate commerce law. It however
found such rate to be unreasonable and so granted an award of
damages in favor of the oil company. The appellate court
reversed the trial court, saying that the latter had no power
under the Act to Regulate Commerce to grant the relief sought
when the rate had not been found to be unreasonable by the
Interstate Commission.
Held: A shipper cannot maintain an action at
common law in a state court for excessive and unreasonable
freight rates where the rates charged had not been found to be
unreasonable by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The
Trial Court has no power to determine the issue of
reasonableness of the rates duly filed and approved by the
Interstate Commerce Commission.
Phil. Global Communications, Inc. v. Relova (1986)
Petitioner filed an application for authority to establish a
branch station in Cebu City which was granted. Respondents
opposed and filed an action for declaratory judgment to
determine the scope and limitations of the legislative franchise
of the petitioner before the court. Petitioner moved to dismiss
it on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction because the
principle of primary jurisdiction applies.
Held: Primary jurisdiction does not apply as what is
involved is a purely legal question involving the scope of Phil
Global Communications’ legislative franchise.
Viadad v. RTC of Negros Oriental, 227 SCRA 271 (1993)
The court cases and the administrative matters are closely
interrelated, if not, interlinked.
While no prejudicial question strictly arises where one is a civil
case and the other is an admin proceeding, in the interest of
good order, it behooves the court to suspend its action on the
cases before it, pending the final outcome of the administrative
proceedings. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not
warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
controversy where the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged
with an administrative body of special competence.
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
Industrial Enterprises v. Court of Appeals (1990)
IEI had two coal-operating contracts which it gave to MMIC in
a MOA. IEI filed for rescission of the MOA with the RTC.
Court said it can‘t. BED should have the primary jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
Held: If the case is such that its determination
requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the
proper administrative bodies because technical matters or
intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will
be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the
proper jurisdiction of a court.
Phil. Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals (2000)
Phil Veterans contest the valuation of the lands that were taken
from them in pursuance of
CARL, assailing the jurisdiction of DAR to determine just
compensation.
Held: In accordance with settled principles of
administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as
an administrative agency, but such determination is subject to
challenge in the courts.
Conrad and Co. v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 691 (1995)
Victoria Biscuits Co. Inc. and Fitrite Inc. were granted
registration of the “Sunshine” trademark. However Conrad was
also engaged in manufacturing, distributing and importing
cookies with the same trademark. Its alleged principal,
Sunshine USA instituted a cancellation proceeding against the
respondents. The latter then filed a case of infringement and
unfair competition against Conrad. The petitioner filed a
motion to dismiss on the grounds of litis pendentia, and
alleged the application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
Held: Doctrine is inapplicable in this case as it
involves a different issue which is the existence of unfair
competition and infringement, issues which are within the
jurisdiction of the court. Furthermore, the application of such
doctrine only suspends the judicial proceeding and does not
terminate pending cases in the courts.
Page 21 of 29
VII. FACTORS AFFECTING JUDICIAL
iv. Case
REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. Pepito, 18 SCRA 1028 (1966)
After Demetrio Pepito, ship crewmember, went missing
A. Law-Fact Distinction between Nov 30 and Dec 1, his wife filed a claim for
compensation of death benefits against Aboitiz Shipping Corp
QUESTIONS OF LAW QUESTIONS OF FACT on the ground that Demetrio was “reported missing as per log
Doubt of controversy as Doubt or difference as to of ship.” The Regional Administrator issued the award for
to what the law is on the truth or falsehood of death benefits because Aboitiz had failed to controvert Ando‘s
certain facts. facts, or as to probative allegation of disappearance within the period provided for by
value of the evidence law.
presented. Held: REVERSED. The non-contravention by Aboitiz
If the appellate court can Determination involves was limited to not controverting Demetrio’s disappearance, but
determine the issue evaluation of review of it was not a confirmation of death. Death, due to its significant
without reviewing or evidence. legal implications, cannot be taken as fact. It is a conclusion of
evaluating the evidence. law. Non-controversion in compensation cases, as in the case of
Can involve questions of Query involves calibration pleadings in ordinary civil cases, simply means admissions of
facts, and not conclusions of law.
interpretation of law with of the whole evidence
respect to certain set of considering mainly the
fact. credibility of witnesses,
existence and relevancy of SESSION 10
specific surrounding
circumstances and relation B. Questions of Law
to each other and the whole
probabilities of the O'Leary v. Brown Pacific-Maxon Inc. (1951)
situation. Valak (employee) drowned trying to save 2 men in the
WON Piolo Pascual is a WON Piolo Pascual is born adjoining channel of the recreation center provided by Brown
Filipino citizen. of a Filipina mother or Pacific to its employees. Valak’s mom claims death benefit
father. under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act which authorized payment of compensation
i. Legal Basis for accidental injury/death arising out of and in the course of
employment. The Deputy Commissioner found as a "fact" that
ii. Purpose of distinguishing the employee's death arose out of and in the course of his
 Determine the extent of judicial review available employment, and awarded a death benefit to his mother.
 There are questions that are purely of fact and Held: Deputy Commissioner’s finding of “fact” was
purely of law. supported by substantial evidence and thus awarded Valak’s
 The law-fact distinction is a tool for allocating mom death benefit.
decision-making power between administrators on
the one hand and accountability institutions such as O'Keeffe v. Smith Associates, 380 US 359 (1965)
courts and tribunals on the other. So, for instance, Employee assigned to work in South Korea drowned while on
limiting the scope of appeals from decisions of an outing on a South Korean lake.
administrative agencies to cases that raise ‘points of Held: family is still entitled to receive death benefits
law’ gives administrators more freedom in resolving from the Workmen’s Compensation Act because the Deputy
issues of fact and policy than in resolving issues of Commissioner’s finding that the employee’s death was still an
law. In fact, administrators are generally required to incident of his employment was not irrational and was
answer legal questions ‘correctly’ as determined supported by substantial evidence.
ultimately by a court. By contrast, they generally
Ortua v. Encarnacion, 59 Phil 440 (1934)
enjoy greater freedom to resolve issues of fact and
Ortua filed with the Bureau of Lands application to buy land
policy differently from the way a court would.
but was rejected on the basis that he was a Chinese citizen.
(Source: Cane, Peter. Administrative Law)
Held: Public Land Law has vested on the DL direct executive
control over land matters and “his decisions as to questions of
iii. Effect on Remedy to be used
fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Sec. of
Determination whether the question is purely of fact or
Agriculture and Commerce.” However, any action based upon
purely of law will decide what remedy to be used:
a misconstruction of law can be corrected by courts. While
whether to file in court or to an admin agency.

Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016 Page 22 of 29

findings of fact of the director of lands are conclusive,
questions of law can still be subject to review of the Court.
Mejia v. Mapa, 50 OG No. 6, 2507 (1954)
Bureau of Forestry granted Maximo permit to construct
fishpond. He later on decided to convert it to a rice field and
entered into a landowner-cropper/tenant + crop-sharing
agreement w/ Compana & others.
Maximo ceded rights and interests in land to son Catalino, who
filed for homestead application. After
Catalino’s death, Respondents refused to give his crop share to
Clotilde, Catalino’s widow, who then filed a separate
homestead application. Director of Lands ruled for Clotilde.
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources ruled in favor of
Mapa.
Held: Ortua not applicable since what is involved is a
reversal of prior decision. Even if affirmed, still not applicable if
SANR’s conclusions based on the facts are erroneous. Such
conclusions are questions of law that are reserved to the courts
to determine.
Ysmael v. CIR, 108 Phil. 407 (1960)
Substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate to
include in a ruling the clear and distinct statement of the law
and facts on which it is based is sufficient. Conclusion of CIR,
based on the facts of the case, that there is ER-EE relationship,
is a question of law.
C. Questions of Fact
Universal Camera v. NLRB, 340 US 474 (1951)
The standard of proof required to support a decision of the
Labor Board on judicial review is the same as that to be exacted
by courts reviewing every administrative action subject to the
Administrative Procedure Act. The Board's findings of fact
must be supported by substantial evidence "on the record
considered as a whole.”
Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, 204 SCRA 767 (1991)
The Monetary Board of Central Bank placed Banco Filipino
under receivership and issued a resolution for the liquidation
of the Bank. 6 of the 9 cases here involve the common issue of
whether or not the liquidator appointed by the CB has the
authority to prosecute as well as to defend suits, and to
foreclose mortgages for and in behalf of the bank while the
issue on the validity of the receivership and liquidation of the
latter is pending resolution. Corollary to this issue is whether
the CB can be sued to fulfill financial commitments of a closed
bank. On the other hand, the other 3 cases all seek to annul
and set aside M.B. Resolution No. 75 (ordering the closure and
receivership on Banco Filipino), on the ground that there was
no basis for such.
Held: closure of Banco Filipino was arbitrary and
committed with GAD. The requirements for foreclosure were
not complied with. Administrative due process does not mean
that the other important principles may be dispensed with; the
decision of the administrative body must have something to
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
support itself and the evidence must be substantial. Where the
decision is merely based upon pieces of documentary evidence
that are not sufficiently substantial and probative for the
purpose and conclusion they are presented, the standard of
fairness mandated in the due process clause is not met.
PAL v. Confessor, 231 SCRA 41 (1994)
PAL and PALEA had a bargaining deadlock. SoLE Assumed
Jurisdiction and issued an order based only on the position
papers of the parties.
Held: SoLE in GAD for failure to consider evidence
adduced by the parties. Order was based on mere conjectures
and projections.
German Marine Agencies v. NLRC, 350 SCRA 629 (2001)
De Lara fell ill during voyage. Instead of giving him immediate
medical attention, company ignored the condition of the
respondent which led to his rapid health deterioration. There
were two conflicting medical certification issued by the
company designated doctor, and the head doctor of Manila
Doctors where he was subsequently confined.
Held: Findings of LA and NLRC upheld because of
the absence of GAD. Findings of fact of the NLRC are
accorded respect and, particularly if they coincide with the LA,
and when supported by substantial evidence.
D. “Questions of Discretion”
If the Administrative Agency is vested with discretionary
power by law, the rule is that the judiciary will not usually
intervene in the exercise of sound discretion.
Except: Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
Discretionary
Defined as the power or right conferred upon public officials
by law to act officially under certain circumstances,
according to the dictates of their own judgment.
Power to make a choice among permissive actions of
policies.
Ministerial
Defined as an act performed in response to a duty which has
been positively imposed by law and its performance required
at a time in a manner or upon conditions specifically
designated, the duty to perform under the conditions
specified not being dependent upon the officer’s judgment.
Simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or
proved to exist and imposed by law.
Laguna Tayabas v. PSC, GR No. 10903, Jan. 18, 1957
Lacdan was granted by the PSC a provisional permit to
maintain 4 round trips on the route Sta. Maria, Laguna to
Manila. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., a competitor, prayed to annul
this, alleging that PSC issued it in abuse of discretion because
they made no finding that present services were inadequate or
insufficient.
Page 23 of 29
 Held: Based on the situation of the residents, Lacdan’s
services were needed. It was for the PSC to weigh the fact
reported as against those disclosed by evidence. Erroneous
appreciation of the significance of the competing facts laid
before the PSC doesn’t mean that it has abused its discretion.
The Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the PSC,
and its orders shall be reversed only if without reasonable
support in the evidence or rendered against law or issued
without jurisdiction.
Kapisanan sa La Suerte v. Noriel, 77 SCRA 414 (1977)
FFW-La Suerte submitted petition for certification election.
Kapisanan challenged it because a) no 30% support and b) filed
beyond 60-day freedom period.
Held: The 30% is only important to make it
mandatory for Director of BLR (or MA) to grant the conduct of
the cert election. If no 30%, it becomes discretionary on the
government agency to grant it, especially if there are multiple
organizations in the bargaining unit. (This is an old case so old
rules apply.)
Federation of Free Workers v. Noriel, 86 SCRA 132 (1978)
Universal textile Mills Union had an existing collective
bargaining agreement with company. Federation of free workers
(another union) filed a petition for certification election even
before the 60-day freedom period. The med-arbiter called for a
certification election. BLR reversed saying that a certification
election is not needed.
Held: While administrative agencies may exercise
discretion in the performance of their duties, they are still
bound by the limits laid down by the law that they seek to
enforce.
SESSION 11
VIII. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
A. Common Provisions
Art. IX, A. Common Provisions 1987 Constitution, Section 7.
Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its
Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty
days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the
Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order,
or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
BP Blg. 129, Sec. 9 as amended by R.A. No. 7902 (1995)
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and
quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commission, 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 third paragraph and
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948.
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 issues raised in cases falling
within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be
continuous and must be completed within three (3) months,
unless extended by the Chief Justice.
Book VII 1987 Administrative Code Section 25. Judicial
Review
(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in
accordance with this chapter and applicable laws.
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an
agency decision may seek judicial review.
(3) The action for judicial review may be brought against
the agency, or its officers, and all indispensable and
necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court.
(4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by
filing with the agency within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the reviewing
court a petition for review of the order. Copies of the petition
shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. The
petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues
involved and the grounds relied upon 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 how, 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 (1) 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. If the decision is reversed
on reconsideration, the appellant shall have fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal.
Page 24 of 29
 (6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court CERTIORARI
specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in any court of Writ of Certiorari is a writ emanating from a superior court
competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on directed against an inferior court, tribunal, or officer
venue of the Rules of Court. exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
(7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken
as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency when Nature:
supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when - It is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of
specifically provided otherwise by law. right; never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion
- A wide breadth of discretion is granted a court of justice in
B. Rule 43 Appeals 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure certiorari proceedings
- The Court is guided by all circumstances of each particular
Appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolution of case as the “as the ends of justice may require.
or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of - The writ is proper to correct errors of jurisdiction
its quasi-judicial functions. committed by the lower court, or grave abuse of discretion
Questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed. which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction
Filed with the CA. - Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but an error of law
or fact which is a mistake of judgment, appeal is the remedy
C. Special Civil Action (Rule 65)
CERTIORARI PROHIBITION MANDAMUS Purefoods v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415 (1989)
Directed against Directed against Directed against A party cannot use the remedy of special civil action on
an entity or an entity or person any entity or certiorari to circumvent the right of an administrative body to
person exercising exercising judicial, person exercising review its decisions.
judicial or quasi- quasi-judicial or ministerial
judicial functions. ministerial functions. Azores v. SEC, 252 SCRA 387 (1996)
functions. The failure of a party to perfect his appeal in the manner and
1. There must be a controversy 1. There must be a within the period fixed by law renders the decision sought to be
2. Respondent is exercising judicial or clear legal right or appealed final. The alleged errors assigned by petitioner are
quasi-judicial function duty. mere errors of judgment, but since petitioner failed to perfect
3. Respondent acted without or in 2. The act to be his appeal to the SEC en banc, he cannot now raise them. In
excess of its jurisdiction or acted with performed must this case for certiorari, the Court is limited to an inquiry into
grave abuse of discretion amounting to be w/n the powers any jurisdictional errors.
lack of jurisdiction; and of the respondent
4. There must be no appeal or other to perform. Villaruel v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 399 (1998)
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. 3. Respondent Narciso worked in a bakery owned by petitioners. He asked for
must be a P10 wage increase, but the petitioners told him not to report
for work anymore. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. LA
exercising a
dismissed the claim, but NLRC reversed and said that he was
ministerial duty
illegally dismissed. Petitioners appealed to SC via Rule 65.
4. The duty or act
Held: Affirmed NLRC. Issues raised were questions of fact that
to be performed
cannot be raised in Certiorari under rule 65 because the
must be existing.
jurisdiction of SC is confined to issues of jurisdiction or GAD.
A correlative right
Just because NLRC reversed the LA does not mean the former
will be denied if
was in GAD. NLRC factual findings are entitled to great
not performed by
respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence.
the respondents.
5. There is no
D. Prohibition
other plain,
speedy, and
Writ of Prohibition is a writ issued by a superior court and
adequate remedy
directed against an inferior court, board, officer or other
in the ordinary
person whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or
course of law
ministerial functions for the purpose of preventing the latter
To annul a To have To do the act from usurping jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested.
proceeding. respondent desist required by law.
from further Prohibition is that process by which a superior court prevents
proceeding. an inferior court or tribunal possessing judicial or quasi-
Corrective Negative and Affirmative or judicial powers from exceeding its jurisdiction or quasi-
remedy preventive remedy negative remedy judicial powers from exceeding its jurisdiction in matters over

Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016 Page 25 of 29

which it has cognizance or usurping matters not within its
jurisdiction to hear or determine.
Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board, 96 Phil. 665 (1955)
Deportation proceedings against petitioner, claiming that he
obtained his Filipino citizenship fraudulently and has been
illegally exercising rights and privileges of Filipino citizens.
Petitioner filed for prohibition, claiming that his Filipino
citizenship is backed up by substantial evidence and that since
his liberty is involved, the issue should first be determined in
judicial proceedings.
Held: A citizen is entitled to live in peace, without
molestation from any official or authority, and if he is disturbed
by a deportation proceedings, he has the unquestionable right
to resort to the courts for his protection, either by a writ of
habeas corpus or of prohibition, on the legal ground that the
Board lacks jurisdiction. In this case, there was substantial
evidence supporting his Filipino citizenship to afford such
belief that an impartial judicial proceeding is needed to ensure
justice. Therefore, the prohibition against the Board was
granted.
Simon v. Commission on Human Rights (1994)
CHR assumed jurisdiction over the case of vendors whose stalls
were demolished by QC
gov’t. CHR issued an Order to Desist against the QC officials.
Held: CHR has no jurisdiction since it does not
involve violation of civil and political rights (business rights)
and is not a quasi-judicial agency or a court of justice.
Paredes v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 126 (1996)
Registered patent agents filed a petition for prohibition against
DTI Secretary et al. to prevent them from enforcing the AOs
they passed.
Held: Prohibition is improper in this case because the
enabling law (BP Blg. 325) already provided for remedies that
Ps should have first exhausted before seeking recourse from the
Courts.
E. Declaratory Relief
Purpose: To relieve the litigants of the common law rule that
no declaration of rights may be judicially adjudged unless a
right has been violated and for the violation of which relief
may be granted.
Requisites:
1. Subject matter of controversy must be a deed, will,
contract, or other written instrument, statute, executive
order or regulation, or ordinance
2. Actual justiciable controversy or “ripening seeds” of a
controversy between parties with adverse interests
3. No breach of documents in question
4. Doubtful as to the terms and validity of the document and
require judicial construction
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
5. Issue is ripe for judicial determination, as where all
administrative remedies have been exhausted
6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or
other forms of action or proceeding
Mirando v. Wellington Ty & Bros. Inc., 81 SCRA 506 (1978)
Petitioners brought this action with a claim that they were
deprived of their preferential right to buy the disputed lots by
virtue of a contract of sale involving said lots executed between
the administrator of the estate of the late Planas and
respondent Wellington Ty & Bros., Inc. But it is evident from
the records that from the date of their relocation to the
disputed lots in 1950 to the date of the filing of this petition
for declaratory relief, at no time did the petitioners-appellants
acquire any interest whatsoever in the parcels of land subject of
the aforementioned contract of sale. They enjoyed no rights
which were violated, or at the least, affected by the exchange of
properties between the national government and the late
Carmen Planas, and eventually, by the above contract of sale
between the administrator of the estate of Carmen Planas and
the respondent-appellee Wellington Ty & Bros., Inc.
F. Common Provisional Remedies Against
Administrative Agency Action
1. Mandamus
Blanco v. Board of Examiners, 46 Phil. 190 (1955)
Blanco et al. wanted the court to compel the Secretary of
Interior to confirm the exam results for the physician’s
certificate exam in via mandamus.
Held: The duty of the Secretary of Interior to confirm
or not to confirm the results was a discretionary duty which
could not be corrected by a complaint for mandamus unless the
duty was done with manifest injustice or gross abuse.
Ng Gloc Liu v. Sec of Foreign Affairs, 85 Phil. 842 (1950)
Discretionary functions are not covered by Mandamus. The
determination of WON an applicant for a visa has a non-
immigrant status and WON his entry into this country would
be contrary to public safety, is not a simple ministerial function.
It involves the exercise of discretion and cannot therefore be
controlled by mandamus. The fact that the Commissioner of
Immigration has made his own investigation and is himself
satisfied that the applicant is entitled to his claim is immaterial.
For the consular officers are not bound by the findings and
conclusions of the immigration office.
Policarpio v. Phil Veterans Board, 99 Phil. 797 (1956)
Wife was claiming pension for dead AFP husband until a
certain year. She applied for restoration of pension. Board gave
her pension then suddenly stopped. CFI issued mandamus to
continue giving her pension.
Held: The issuance of a memorandum was a mistake.
Even then, mandamus does not lie on discretionary powers of
an agency. However, mandamus may lie to compel the board to
take action on an application.
Page 26 of 29

Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission, 105 Phil. 377 (1959)
Tan seeks to claim backpay of guerilla veteran husband. VBC
denied her claim on the basis that her husband was an alien
and therefore not entitled to backpay. Tan filed for mandamus
to compel payment. Commission claims that they cannot be
compelled through mandamus since their function is
discretionary.
Held: Discretion is limited to fact finding and once
established that one is a guerilla member, it becomes
mandatory for them to give due course to widow’s application.
Province of Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission (1977)
The Province applied for $1.5M worth of reparation goods and
was approved as revenue generating. When the goods arrived,
they were initially released to the petitioner but the document
of title was not given to the petitioner. Instead, it was required
by RC to return the goods and pay the procurement costs. The
petitioner filed a mandamus case to compel RC to transfer title.
Held: For mandamus to lie, it is essential that the
plaintiff should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded
and that there must be an imperative duty of the defendant to
perform the act required, and such duty be clearly shown.
However, there was no such duty in this case because the goods
were classified as revenue generating.
2. Injunction
a. In General
A judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is
ordered to do or to refrain from doing a particular act. May
be an action in itself.
Preliminary injunction - Ancillary remedy
Purpose: Preservation of status quo or prevention of future
wrongs in order to preserve certain interests and rights
during the pendency of an action.
Requisites:
1. There must be a verified application
2. The applicant must establish that:
a. He has a right to relief or a right to be protected
and
b. The act against which the injunction is sought
violates such right
3. The applicant must also establish that:
a. There is a need to restrain the commission or
continuance of the acts complained of and
b. If not enjoined would work injustice to him
4. A bond must be posted UNLESS otherwise exempted by
the court
5. The threatened injury must be incapable of pecuniary
estimation
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
Kinds:
Preliminary Prohibitory Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction Injunction
Prevent a person from Require a person to perform
performing an act an act
Act has not yet been Act has been performed and
performed such act has violated the
rights of another
Status quo is preserved Status quo is restored
Collector v. Reyes, 90 Phil. 70 (1951)
Reyes filed his income tax returns for 1946-1950. The CIR
issued a warrant of distraint and levy was issued only on Oct.
13, 1954 or three years, 5 months, and 16 days after Reyes filed
returns for tax year 1950. When the CTA granted Reyes’
petition for injunction against the CIR’s collection for having
been issued beyond the 3-year prescription period, CIR
questioned the CTA’s authority to issue an injunction without
first requiring Reyes to file a bond/surety for the tax
delinquencies in court.
Held: The requirement of the bond as a condition
precedent to the issuance of a writ of injunction applies only in
cases where the processes by which the collection sought to be
made by means thereof are carried out in consonance with the
law and not when said processes are obviously in violation of
the law to the extreme that they have to be suspended for
jeopardizing the interests. No bond is required because the
warrant of distraint was issued beyond the 3-year prescriptive
period, hence invalid.
Pineda v. Lantin, 6 SCRA 757 (1962)
Acting on a letter-complaint filed against Bacolod-Murcia and
Araneta, SEC Commissioner ordered an investigation and
issued a subpoena duces tecum. Araneta filed several petitions
to stop the investigation but to no avail so he filed a special civil
action for prohibition against SEC investigators. Investigators
filed a motion to dismiss but CFI Judge ordered trial on the
merits.
Held: Power to grant injunctive reliefs against SEC lies
with the SC in accordance with Rules of Court and CA 83 and
not with courts of general jurisdiction like CFI.
Lemi v. Valencia, 7 SCRA 469 (1963)
In certain cases, courts should not hesitate in granting the writ.
(1) cases of extreme urgency;
(2) where petitioner's right to the writ is clear;
(3) where considerations of relative inconvenience are strongly
in his favor;
(4) where there appears to be a willful invasion of petitioner's
right, the injury inflicted upon him being a continuing one;
and
(5) where the effect of the mandatory injunction would not be
to create a new relation between the parties but solely to re-
establish a pre-existing relation between them recently and
arbitrarily interrupted by the respondent.
Page 27 of 29
 Honda v. San Diego, 16 SCRA 406 (1966)
Honda importer Hahn wanted to register the name HM Honda
in his name at the Patent Office. Honda Opposed. PO
dismissed Hahn’s petition so he filed MR which was also
denied. Hahn then filed petition for certiorari with CFI and
CFI issued injunction against PO.
Held: CFI cannot issue injunction because it is of
equal rank with Patent Office. A writ of injunction, prohibition
or certiorari may be issued against a court only by another court
superior in rank to the former.
Nocnoc v. Vera, 88 SCRA 529 (1979)
Nocnoc filed compensation claim with Workmen’s
Compensation Unit which was granted. Upon finality, he was
granted a writ of execution. Employer filed for injunction w/
CFI and was granted.
Held: CFI had no jurisdiction to impugn the validity
of WCU’s award and to enjoin its execution since the law is
clear that WCU had jurisdiction and, upon appeal, the SC.
b. Special Note: Injunction Against
Government Projects
Republic Act No. 8975 An Act To Ensure The Expeditious
Implementation And Completion Of Government
Infrastructure Projects By Prohibiting Lower Courts From
Issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions
Or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions
SESSION 12
IX. ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY
ACTION
A. Res Judicata, Finality of Judgment
RES JUDICATA
A final judgment rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the
parties and their privies, and as to them constitutes an
absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same
claim, demand or causes of action.
Purpose:
1. Give finality to decisions rendered by the courts and
put an end to litigation.
2. Keep parties who have relied on the final judgment
from being prejudiced.
3. Avoid flip-flopping of decisions for a reliable
jurisprudence.
Requisites:
1. A FINAL judgment or order
2. JURISDICTION over the subject matter and the
parties by the court rendering it.
3. Judgment UPON MERITS
4. Between the TWO CASES, there is:
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
a. identity of parties
b. identity of subject matter
c. identity of cause of action
Law of the case – Res Judicata – Stare decisis
CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT
The issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit
cannot again be raised in any future case between the same
parties involving a different cause of action.
- It has the effect of preclusion ONLY OF THE ISSUES
- Parties in both actions may be the same but the causes of
action are different
Requirement: Identity of ISSUES
Where Conclusiveness of Judgment NOT applicable:
1. Where the issues of the 2 cases are not identical
2. The rule does not apply to issues of law
Ipekdjian Merchandising v. Court of Tax Appeals (1963)
Ipekdijan does not want to pay taxes. Case 1, decision of BTA
became final because it wasn’t appealed on time. Case 2,
petitioner paid a bit then asked that the amount be returned
and the balance be cancelled.
Held: The issue of the 2nd case is still the same as in
the first case. Doctrine of res judicata also applies to bodies
with judicial powers and not only courts.
Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 177 SCRA 93 (1989)
The doctrine of res judicata applied only to judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative
powers.
Dulay v. Minister of Natural Resources, 218 SCRA 562
(1993)
Dulay asked the SC to confine the BFAR Director within his
jurisdiction and to uphold the principle of res judicata by
nullifying his orders giving due course to Dico’s request to re-
open the two DANR cases which had longed attained finality
and his telegrams stating the dismissal of her MRs. Dico, on the
other hand, contended that res judicata does not apply in cases
where the government has to exercise its inherent power to
regulate.
Held: The DANR cases had become final for not
having been brought to the courts for judicial review.
Therefore, the BFAR Director abused his discretion in insisting
on the continuation of the formal investigation on the basis of
res judicata.
Phil. American General Insurance Co. Inc. v. CA (1993)
Davao Union shipped some cargo on board Crazy Horse,
operated by respondent
Transpacific. The discharge of the cargo was continuously
delayed and interrupted, so when a typhoon came and
destroyed the ship, a portion of the cargo was lost to damage
and pilferage. Transpacific invoked administrative proceedings
Page 28 of 29
before the Board of Marine Inquiry, which did not find
negligence with the shipmaster and crew.
Held: Not res judicata because there was no identity of
causes of action between the two cases. The proceedings before
the Board were administrative in nature; this action before the
Court is civil. In any case, Transpacific cannot be held liable for
the loss of the cargo, because evidence shows that the
shipmaster was in fact not negligent.
Manila Electric Co. v. Phil. Consumers Foundations, et al.,
GR No. 101783 Jan. 23, 2002
PCF filed a case for specific performance against Meralco with
the Board of Energy in order to refund the savings from the
application of P.D. 551 which reduced the franchise tax paid by
Meralco. The BOE ruled in favor of Meralco and was affirmed
by the SC. Decision became final. 4 years later, PCF with Isip
filed a civil case for declaratory relief with the RTC, RTC
declared SC decision null and void.
Held: Res Judicata applies, all 4 requisites are present
in the case.
B. Writ of Execution, Mandamus
Mandamus is a writ issued in the name of the State, to an
inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, commanding
the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station.
Apolega v. Hizon, 25 SCRA 336 (1968)
Apolega’s alleged employee filed a notice of claim for
compensation for an injury suffered while working. Apolega
failed to controvert the claim, so the DOLE Regional Office
awarded the amount prayed for. Later, said employee died as a
result of his injury, so his widow filed for death benefits—which
again were granted after Apolega failed to challenge it. The
award was deemed final and executory, and an execution was
issued against his personal property. He thus questioned the
authority of the WCC and DOLE Regional Office to issue such
a writ.
Held: although the issuance of a writ of execution is
procedural in nature, and thus essentially within the Court’s
rule-making power, Congress had the constitutional power to
legislate that these bodies may issue such a writ.
Vda. De Corpuz v. Commanding General, Phil. Army, GR
No. L-44077, Sept. 30, 1978
Commanding General wouldn’t release the full death benefits
and burial expenses awarded to Eliodora and her children even
though it was declared to be final and executory. Commanding
General’s reason was that the benefits given under RA 610 and
the Worker’s Compensation Act are mutually exclusive, and
would therefore result in double compensation. Eliodora filed
for mandamus to compel payment of full benefits and to re-
examine the doctrine in Anchez case.
Held: Eliodora has the right to the full award of
benefits since the award has become final and executory. The
Cristobal ■ Nuñez A2016
re-examination of doctrine, however, wasn’t entertained since
this was a suit for mandamus. Any opinion of the Court upon
the validity of the doctrine would be unnecessary and would
merely constitute an obiter dictum.
Ambrosio v. Salvador, GR No. L-47651, Dec. 11, 1978
NLRC ruled for the 39 taxi drivers in an illegal deduction of
wages case. The Sheriff levied on 3 lots registered under Lim
Pa. Lim Pa filed an injunction case against the NLRC, sheriff
and register of deeds to stop the sale of land levied, alleging that
he was not a party to the case.
Held: Proper recourse was in the NLRC and appeal
the latter’s decision (if affirmed) to the SC. This is because the
CFI is a court of concurrent jurisdiction with the NLRC
(successor of CIR). CFI can only issue an injunctions against
lower courts.
Merano v. Tutaan, 115 SCRA 343 (1982)
Mandamus will not be issued when there are other plain,
speedy and adequate remedies still available. Merano should
have sought relief from the NLRC because the Labor Arbiter
failed to enforce former’s decision that ordered actual
reinstatement.
GSIS v. Civil Service Commission, 202 SCRA 799 (1991)
Employees were terminated by GSIS for being undesirable.
CSC ruled that dismissals were illegal and ordered
reinstatement + backwages. Pending SC ruling Manuel and
Namuco died. SC issued resolution that backwages should
depend on outcome of disciplinary proceedings. Heirs asked for
execution of CSC judgment.
Held: CSC has the power to execute its decisions and
that backwages should be awarded to the heirs as no
disciplinary proceeding can be instituted against the terminated
employees because they were dead.
Clavano v. HLURB, GR No. 143781, Feb. 27, 2002
Except in the case of judgments which are void ab initio or null
per se for lack of jurisdiction which can be questioned at any
time, once a decision becomes final, even the court which has
rendered it can no longer alter or modify it, except to correct
clerical errors or mistakes. Otherwise, there would be no end to
litigation and would set to naught the main role of courts of
justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law
and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable
controversies with finality.
SOURCES
A2016 digests
UP and Ateneo Bar reviewers
A2015 and B2015 Admin reviewers
JQT notes
SPECIAL THANKS
A2016, best block ever
Page 29 of 29