I.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAWS
Scope of Power of Administrative Agencies
01. What are the two basic delegated powers of administrative agencies? What are the two tests
of valid delegation?
ANSWERS: Quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. In exercising its quasi-judicial function,
an administrative body adjudicates the rights of persons before it, in accordance with the
standards laid down by law, including the requirements of notice and hearing. The
determination of facts and the applicable laws, as the basis for official action and the
exercise of judicial discretion, are essential for the performance of this function. Quasi-
legislative power is exercised by administrative agencies through the promulgation of
rules and regulations within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-
delegation of certain powers flowing from the separation of the great branches of the
government. Prior notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of rules or
regulations promulgated to govern future conduct. (Abella vs. CSC, 442 SCRA 507)
The two tests of valid delegation are the 1) completeness test and 2) sufficient
standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he
will have to do is to enforce it. The second test mandates that there should be adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegate’s authority
and prevent the delegation from running riot. (Ibid.)
02. Is the establishment of a national computerized identification reference system by virtue of
an administrative order issued by the President valid?
ANSWER: NO. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which
relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of the government.
Administrative Order No. 308 did not merely implement the Administrative Code.
It establishes a national computerized identification reference system which requires a
delicate adjustment of various contending state policies, the primacy of national security,
the extent of privacy against dossier-gathering by the government, and choices of
policies. It deals with a subject that should be covered by law. (Ople vs. Torres, 293
SCRA 141)
Operation and Effects of Laws; Publication Requirement
03. When do laws take effect?
ANSWERS: Where a law provides for its own date of effectivity, such date prevails over
that prescribed by E.O. 200. There is nothing in E.O. 200 that prevents a law from taking
effect on the date other than or even before the 15-day period after its publication. What
is mandatory and what due process requires is the publication of the law, for without such
notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim
“ignorantia legis neminem excusat.” (La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association vs. Ramos, GR
No. 127882, January 27, 2004)
Subdelegation of authority
04. What do you understand by the doctrine of subdelegation of authority? Is this permissible
in this jurisdiction? Discuss its rationale.
Subdelegation of authority is the transmission of authority from the heads of
agencies to subordinates. Settled is the rule that a delegate may exercise his authority
through persons he appoints to assist him in the performance of his functions as long as
the decisions remains within the scope of his jurisdiction and is made by such officer.
The following instances of subdelegation of power have been sustained as valid:
a) the President under the doctrine of qualified political agency delegates power and
authority to the members of his official family who are considered as his alter ego.
(Carpio vs. Executive Secretary, 206 SCRA 290) and
b) the Securities and Exchange Commission may delegate to subordinate officials
the authority to exercise the specific powers assigned to it by law. (Skyworld
Condominium Owners Association vs. SEC, 211 SCRA 565)

-1-
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW / P02
This is permissible in administrative proceedings because subdelegation of power
is dictated by sound management principles and the exigencies of the service. By
subdelegation of authority which is demanded by administrative efficiency, the leaders in
the hierarchy of an organization must be able to concentrate their attention upon a larger
and more important questions of policy and practice, and their time free, as much as
possible, from the consideration of a smaller and far less matters of details unless by
provision of law it is withheld. (American Tobacco Co. vs. Director of Patents, 67 SCRA
287)
Subdelegation of authority is permissible in order to achieve prompt and
expeditious discharge of public functions and responsibilities. To withhold such power to
subdelegate the authority would be to impair administrative efficiency. Moreover, the
1987 Constitution commands public officers and employees to serve with utmost
efficiency, hence to insure compliance with this constitutional mandate, subdelegation
must, perforce, be allowed to attain prompt and efficient service.
Rule-making power
05. What are the requisites for a valid exercise of rule-making power by an administrative
agency?
ANSWER: The requisites are:
1) the rule must be issued under the authority of law or its promulgation must be
authorized by the legislature;
2) the administrative issuance must be within the scope and purview of the law; or
authority given by the legislature
3) the rule must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure,
including public participation, filing and publication; As a general rule, prior
notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of rules and regulations
promulgated to govern future conduct. (Abella vs. CSC, 442 SCRA 507); and
3) the rules must be reasonable (KMU vs. Director-General, NEDA, GR No.167798,
April 19, 2006) .
Additional requisites if rules contain penal sanctions
1) Law itself must declare as punishable the violation of administrative rule or
regulation (People vs. Maceren, 79, SCRA 450); and
2) Law should define or fix penalty therefor.
In Perez vs. LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, 492 SCRA 638, the
Supreme Court cited two requisites for an administrative regulations to have force and
effect of penal law, to wit:
1) the violation of the administrative 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.
06. Can POEA Administrative Circular No 2, Series of 1983, issued pursuant to the agency’s
quasi-legislative power, be used as a basis for the imposition of administrative sanctions
against erring recruitment agencies?
ANSWER: NO. Considering that POEA Administrative Circular No. 2 Series of 1983,
has the force and effect of a law and has not yet been published or filed with the National
Administrative Register, the same is ineffective and may not be enforced.
Under Book VI, Chapter II, Section 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987 “rules
in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months
from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party or
persons.” An Administrative Circular that was never filed with the NAR cannot be used
as basis for the imposition of administrative sanctions. The fact that POEA
Administrative Circular No. 2 is addressed only to specified group-namely private
employment agencies or authority holders, does not take it away from the ambit of the
ruling in Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27, which is clear and categorical –
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW / P03
administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. (Philsa International Placement
and Service Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor, 356 SCRA 174)
07. Is OMB-DOJ Joint Circular NO. 95-001 ineffective on the ground that it was not published?
ANSWER: The circular is merely an internal circular between the DOJ and the Office of
the Ombudsman, outlining authority and responsibilities among prosecutors of the DOJ
and the Office of the Ombudsman in the conduct of preliminary investigation. The
circular DOES NOT regulate the conduct of persons or the public in general. Internal
regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.
Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instruction issued by
administrative superiors concerning rules or guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their duties. (Honasan vs. The Panel of Investigating
Prosecutors of the DOJ, GR No. 159747, April 13, 2004)
Rate-fixing
08. An administrative agency passes a resolution prescribing rates. Should there be prior notice
and hearing to the parties to be affected by the rates fixed? Explain.
ANSWER: It depends. In Philippine Consumers Foundation Philippines vs. Secretary of
DECS, 153 SCRA 622, it was held that the function of prescribing rates by an
administrative agency may either be a legislative or an adjudicative function. If it were a
legislative function, the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a
requirement of due process. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in
the exercise of its quasi-judicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to
the validity of such rates. Where the rules and the rates are meant to apply to all
enterprises of a given kind throughout the country, they may partake of a legislative
character. But if they apply exclusively to a particular party based upon a finding of facts,
then its function is quasi-judicial in character.
09. Does the Energy Regulatory Commission have the power to grant provisional rate
adjustments? What is the procedural requirement in the exercise of such power?
ANSWERS: YES. The power to approve provisional rate increases is included among the
powers transferred to the ERC and the grant of such authority is not inconsistent with the
EPIRA. Neither is the notion of provisional rate adjustment incompatible with the policy
to protect public interest. The ERC is required to conduct a full-blown hearing on the
propriety of the grant of provisional rate adjustments within 30 days from the issuance of
the provisional order. (Freedom from Debt Coalition vs. ERC, 432 SCRA 157)
Administrative interpretation of the law
10. Can administrative bodies interpret laws which they are tasked to enforce?
ANSWER: YES. Administrative bodies may interpret the law they are tasked to
implement. To otherwise deprive administrative bodies the duty, at the first instance, to
interpret the laws which they are mandated to execute would make them impotent bodies.
The construction and interpretation given by administrative officers possessed of the
necessary special knowledge, expertise and experience of what the law is deserves
greatest respect and can only be set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion. (PLDT
vs. NTC, 190 SCRA 717)
It is the general policy of the Supreme Court to sustain the decision of
administrative authorities not only on the basis of separation of powers but also for their
presumed knowledgeability and even expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce.
(Santiago vs. Dep. Exec. Secretary, 192 SCRA 199)
The interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is tasked to
implement a statute, is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of
the courts. When an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of
policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at
best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. (Melendres,
Jr. Vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 262 and Baltazar vs. COMELEC, 350 SCRA 518,)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW / P04
Power to issue subpoena and cite for contempt
11. Are administrative agencies granted the power to issue subpoena and punish individuals for
contempt?
ANSWER: As a general rule, the power to issue subpoena and cite a person in contempt
is not inherent to an administrative agency and thus depends on a statutory grant. Without
such grant, a person must apply in court. EO 292 grants administrative agencies in
general the power to issue subpoenas by requiring the attendance of witnesses or the
production of documents. (Book VII, Sec. 13), but only as an incident of their power to
investigate.
The power to punish contempt must be expressly granted to the administrative
body; and when so granted may be exercised only when the administrative body is
actually performing quasi-judicial functions. The COMELEC, SEC and the Insurance
Commissioner are granted these powers by special statutory grant.
In cases of violation of its rules of procedures, the Commission on Human Rights
may cite for contempt a person in accordance with the Rules of Court. (Carino vs. CHR,
204 SCRA 483) The Commission on Human Rights, in cases of violation of its rules of
procedure may cite a person for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. (Carino
vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483) Likewise, the authority to conduct hearings or inquiries and the
power to hold any person in contempt may be exercised by the Cooperative Development
Authority but limited only in the performance of its administrative functions. (CDA vs.
Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative Inc, 382 SCRA 552)
Other powers; Form and promulgation of quasi-judicial determination
12. Are administrative bodies in the performance of their quasi-judicial functions?
(1) authorized to grant immunities from criminal and civil prosecutions;
(2) empowered to award damages in civil case;
(3) required to state the facts clearly and distinctly stating therein the legal basis when
rendering decisions?
ANSWERS:
(1) NO. The rule is that administrative bodies in the performance of their quasi-
judicial functions cannot grant criminal and civil immunities to persons unless the law
explicitly and specifically confers such prerogative or power. EXCEPTIONS: Insofar as
the PCGG is concerned, it is conferred such power under Sec. 5 of EO No. 14. (Republic
vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 72) Also, the Commission on Human Rights may grant
immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of
documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth. (Carino
vs. Commission on Human Rights, 204 SCRA 483)
(2) Powers of administrative agencies are limited and usually administrative in
nature. In case of injury or inconvenience suffered by a person because of breach of
contractual obligation arising from negligence, the proper forum for him to ventilate their
grievances for possible recovery of damages should be in the courts and not in
administrative agencies. Being a creature of the legislature, administrative agencies can
exercise only such jurisdiction and power as are expressly or by necessary implication
conferred upon it by statute. (RCPI vs. Board of Communications, L-43653, L-45378,
November 29, 1977)
Exceptions. However, the National Housing Authority (now the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board) has been conferred by PD 1344, the competence to award
damages including attorney’s fees which are recoverable either by agreement of the
parties or under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. (Solid Homes vs. Payawal, 177 SCRA 72)
Likewise, in GMA Network, Inc. vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp, 470 SCRA 727, it was
held that where the wrongful acts complained of and upon which the damages prayed for
are based have to do with the operation and ownership of cable companies, the resolution
of these factual matters undoubtedly pertains to the National Telecommunications
Commission and not the regular courts. While it is true that the regular courts are
possessed of general jurisdiction over actions for damages, it would nonetheless be
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW / P05

proper for the courts to yield its jurisdiction in favor of an administrative body when the
determination of underlying factual issues requires the special competence or knowledge
of the latter.
(3) YES. Every decision of an agency shall be in writing and shall state the facts and
the law on which it is based. (Book VII, Section 14) The mandate of Section 14, Article
VIII of the Constitution requiring courts to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the
legal basis of their decisions is equally applicable to administrative bodies. (Naguiat vs.
NLRC, 269 SCRA 564 and Pilipinas Kao Inc. vs. CA, 372 SCRA 548))
Administrative Due Process
13. What rights are included in administrative due process?
ANSWER: Administrative due process is recognized to include the right to:
A. Procedural Due Process
1) Notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that may
affect a person’s legal right;
2) Reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights, and to introduce
witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor;
B. Substantive Due Process
3) A tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and
impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction;
4) And a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least ascertained in the records or disclosed to the
parties. (Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat, 38 SCRA 489 and Fabella vs. CA, 282
SCRA 256)
14. In administrative proceedings, including those before the Ombudsman, may cases be
submitted for resolution on the basis of affidavits and pleadings without violating due
process?
ANSWER: YES. It is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an
administrative tribunals to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or
documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the
place of their direct testimonies. (Marcelo vs. Bungubung, 552 SCRA 589)
15. Is it mandatory for administrative bodies to conduct trial- type proceedings as a requirement
of due process?
ANSWER: NO. A formal trial type hearing is not at all times essential to due process.
Where the litigants are given the opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or
pleadings, procedural due process is fulfilled. The essence of due process is found in the
reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one’s defense.
Exceptions: (1) In quasi judicial proceedings when an adjudicative fact is at issue, a trial-
type hearing ought to be held. (Mabuhay Textile Mills Corp. Vs Ongpin, 141 SCRA 437)
(2) actual adversarial proceedings become necessary only for clarification or when there
is a need to profound searching questions to witnesses who give vague testimonies. In
labor cases, it is a procedural right which the employee must ask for. It is not an inherent
right. If petitioner requested that an investigation be conducted but respondents
vehemently refused, clearly the petitioner was deprived of his right to due process.
(Lavador vs. “J” Marketing Corp., 461 SCRA 497)
16. Give at least six (6) instances when notice and hearing are not required in administrative
proceedings.
ANSWER:
1. Grant of provisional authority for increased rates, or to engage in a particular line of
business;
2. Summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon the property of a delinquent
taxpayer;
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW / P06

3. Cancellation of a passport where no abuse of discretion is committed by the Foreign

Secretary;
4. Summary abatement of nuisance per se which affects the immediate safety of persons
or property.
5. Summary sequestration of ill-gotten wealth by the PCGG.
6. Preventive suspension of a public officer pending investigation.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
17.
(1) Discuss the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and its exceptions.
When is it applicable? What is its rationale?
(2) What is the effect of the failure to observe the doctrine?
ANSWERS:
(1) The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies simply provides that before a
party-litigant can seek judicial intervention, he must exhaust all means of
administrative redress available under the law. The exceptions are:
1) doctrine of qualified political agency, when the respondent is a department secretary
whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of
the latter; except where law expressly provides exhaustion;
2) issue involved is purely legal
3) administrative remedy is fruitless;
4) where there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency;
5) administrative action is patently illegal, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
6) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction;
7) where there is irreparable injury, or threat thereof, unless judicial recourse is
immediately made
8) in land case, where the subject matter is a private land;
9) where law does not make exhaustion a condition precedent to judicial recourse;
10) where observance of the doctrine will result in nullification of claim;
11) where there are special reasons or circumstances demanding immediate court action;
12) when due process of law is clearly violated.
13) when the issue is rendered moot and academic (Land Bank of the Philippines vs.
Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 144)
14) when the issue is invested with public interest. In the case of, Indiana Aerospace
University vs. CHED, 356 SCRA, the Supreme Court ruled that it is patently clear that
the regulation or administration of educational institutions, especially on tertiary
level, is invested with public interest. Hence the haste with which the solicitor general
raised these issues before the appellate court is understandable. For the reason
mentioned, the respondent’s petition for certiorari did not require prior resort to a
motion for reconsideration.
The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies applies only where there is an
express legal provision requiring such administrative step as a condition precedent to
taking action in court. (CSC vs. DBM, 464 SCRA 11)
One of the reasons for the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the
separation of powers which enjoins upon the judiciary a becoming policy of non-
interference with matters coming primarily within the competence of other department.
The legal reason is that the courts should not act and correct its mistakes or errors and
amend its decision on a given matter and decide it properly. (Lopez vs. City of Manila,
303 SCRA 448) And the practical reason is that the administrative process is intended to
provide less expensive and more speedy solution to disputes.
(2) Failure to exhaust administrative remedies will not affect the jurisdiction of the
courts. Non-compliance with the doctrine will deprive the complainant of a cause of
action which is a ground for a motion to dismiss the case. However, if no motion to
dismiss is filed on this ground, there is deemed to be a waiver. (Rosario vs. CA, 211
SCRA 384 and Baguioro vs. Basa, 214 SCRA 437)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW / P07
However, in the case of MERALCO vs. Barlis, 317 SCRA 832, the Supreme Court
ruled that, an error in the assessment must be administratively pursued to the exclusion of
ordinary courts whose decision would be void for lack of jurisdiction.
Primary Jurisdiction
18. (1) Explain the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
(2) What is the effect of failure to observe the doctrine?
ANSWERS:
(1) The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction means that judicial action of a case is
deferred pending the determination of some issues which properly belong to an
administrative body because their expertise, specialized skills, knowledge and resources
are required for the resolution of factual and non-legal matters. In such a case, relief must
first be sought and obtained in the administrative body concerned before the remedy will
be supplied by the Court. Where a statute lodges exclusive original jurisdiction in an
administrative agency, the courts will refuse to take up a case unless the agency has
finally completed its proceedings.
The doctrine does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of
special competence. (Roxas & Co. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106 and Province
of Zamboanga del Norte vs. Court of Appeals, 342 SCRA)
(2) The application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not call for the
immediate dismissal of the case pending before the court. The case is merely suspended
until the issues resolvable by the administrative body are threshed out and fully
determined. (Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA, 184 SCRA 426)

Judicial Review and Jurisdiction

19. Are acts and decisions of administrative agencies subject to judicial review?

ANSWER: YES. Given the expanded scope of judicial review as including the power to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government, the
courts can review acts of all administrative agencies, not only in the performance of their
adjudicative function (generally by the Court of Appeals through the special civil action
of certiorari), but even in the performance of their other functions including quasi-
legislative or rule-making and administrative functions (by the RTC).
Courts have the power to scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies even
though no right of review is given by statute. Judicial review is proper in case of lack of
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion. (Dabuet vs. Roche
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 149 SCRA 386)
20. What courts exercise the power of judicial review over administrative determinations?

ANSWER:
General Rule: It is the Court of Appeals that is conferred with the power of
judicial review over the decisions of administrative agencies. except COMELEC, COA,
and Ombudsman in criminal cases in which case the Supreme Court exercises
jurisdiction.
BP 129 provides that the Court of Appeals shall exercise “xxx exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of quasi-
judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except those falling within
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution.”
Likewise, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court of
Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction over awards, judgments, final orders or
resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi- judicial function.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW / P08

Thus, if a party disagrees with the decision of the Office of the President, he should
elevate the matter by petition for review before the Court of Appeals for the latter’s
exercise of judicial review, pursuant to Sec. 9(3) of BP 129. (Sanado vs. CA, 356 SCRA
546 and Serondo vs. CA, 375 SCRA 167)
As with other administrative agencies discharging quasi-judicial functions,
recourse must first be had through the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure on the orders, resolutions or decisions of the following: (1) the
Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) (Republic vs. Damayan ng
Purok 14, INC., GR No. 143135, April 4, 2003), (2) the Board of Commissioners of the
Bureau of Immigration (Agus Dwikarma vs. Domingo, GR No. 153454, July 7, 2004), (3)
voluntary arbitrators (Silver Trading Co. vs. Semana, GR No. 152456, April 28, 2004), (4)
National Labor Relations Commission (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA
494), (5) Secretary of Labor (National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, 304 SCRA
407), (6) Director of Bureau of Labor Relations (Abbot Laboratories Phil. Vs. Abbot
Laboratories Employees Union) and (7) DOJ Secretary in petitions for review (Public
Utilities Department, Olongapo City vs.Guingona, 365 SCRA 467)
Exceptions: The Supreme Court, however, exercises appellate jurisdiction over all
final judgments, decisions, resolutions or orders of the COMELEC, Commission on
Audit and Ombudsman in criminal cases in accordance with the Constitution. (Garcia-
Rueda vs. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 769) Rule 43 of Rules on Civil Procedure provides that
final resolutions of the Civil Service Commission shall be appealable by certiorari to the
Court of Appeals.
Likewise, under RA 9282, the Court of Tax Appeals exercises appellate
jurisdiction over the decisions or ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
Customs Commissioner, BIR, and the Secretaries of the DOF, DA and DTI.

21. Is a government-owned and controlled corporation part of the Government of the

Philippines? Is the Polytechnic University of the Philippines part of the government? When
is a government-owned or controlled corporation deemed to be performing proprietary
function? When is it deemed to be performing governmental function?

ANSWER: A government-owned and controlled corporation which also performs

governmental function is a part of the government. If it solely performs proprietary
functions, then it is not. The PUP and the NDC have their respective charters and
therefore each possesses a separate and distinct individual personality. Beyond cavil, a
government-owned and controlled corporation has a personality of its own distinct and
separate from that of the government. (PUP vs. CA, 368 SCRA 691)
Government-owned or controlled corporations may perform governmental or
proprietary functions or both, depending on the purpose for which they have been
created. If the purpose is to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit, the
function is proprietary. If it is in the interest of health, safety and for the advancement of
public good and welfare, affecting the public in general, the function is governmental.
Powers classified as “proprietary” are those intended for private advantage and benefits.
(Blaquera vs. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366)
--oo0oo--