Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Memory Aid for Administrative Law

(Finals)
I. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
Legislative Power
- Under our Constitution, legislative power is
primarily vested to the National Legislature or
Philippine Congress.

Section 1, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution:
- Legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall
consists of Senate and House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved
to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.

Legislative Power Delegated Authority by the
People
- However, the legislative power vested upon
Congress is nothing but a delegated power
vested by the people.

Section 1, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution:
- The Philippine is a democratic and republican
State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.

General Rule:
- Since legislative power is a delegated authority,
it follows as a rule that Congress cannot
delegate this authority any further.
- The reason is that, we repose trust upon
Congress to act upon this power, and Congress
in turn cannot abdicate from this duty.

Delegata Postestas non Potest Delegari
- Delegated authority cannot be further delegated

The Rule as it is now:
- Congress is can already delegate legislative
power to the following:
a) Administrative Bodies
b) President
c) People
d) Local Government Unit

Supreme Court (mentioned by Agpalo)
- Section 5, par. 5, Article 8
- However, according to Atty. Galleon, this is not
delegated by Congress to the Supreme Court but
delegated by the Constitution itself.

Permissible Delegation of Legislative Power
PRESIDENT
Section 23 (2), Article 6 Emergency Power
- In times of war and national emergency,
Congress by enactment of a law, for a limited
period and subject to restrictions, exercise
power which are necessary to declare national
policies.
- If this happens, the President will become a
Constitutional Dictator.
Can the President by ipso facto exercise emergency
power?
No, as stated by section 23(2), article 6, there has to be a
law, if there is no law delegating emergency power to the
President, then the President cannot exercise emergency
power, even if there is already a national emergency or
war.
Now, suppose there is a national emergency, is Congress
mandated to delegate emergency power to the President?
No, the delegation of emergency power to the President
is entirely left to the sound discretion of Congress, even if
there is already a national emergency.
Congress is not duty bound to delegate emergency
power to the President even in times of war or national
emergency.
Now, suppose there is a national emergency, is Congress
mandated to delegate emergency power to the President?
No, the delegation of emergency power to the President
is entirely left to the sound discretion of Congress, even if
there is already a national emergency.
The law delegating to the President emergency power
only lasted for 3 months, but the national emergency
lasted for 5 months, Can the President still execute
emergency power?
No, the delegation of emergency is only limited period as
provided for by the law.
There is a war, and Congress delegated to the President
emergency power to the President, however Congress
was not able to state a time period, how long can the
President exercise emergency power?
He shall continue exercising power until the next
adjournment of Congress.

Section 28 (2), Article 6 Emergency Power
- Congress may by law authorize the President to
fix within specified limit and subject to such
restriction they may prescribe:
Adjust tariff rates
Import and export quotas
Wharfage dues
And other duties or imposts within the
framework of the national development
program of the Government.

1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines
Authorizing to the President the promulgation of
Presidential Issuances, which has the force and
effect of a law.
Executive Orders - executive act of the
President in prescribing Constitutional Powers.
Administrative Orders act of the President
dealing with governmental operations in
pursuant to his function as the Chief Executive
of the Government.
Proclamations declaring dates or days as
special days or holidays.
Memorandum Orders act of the President
pertaining to administrative officers or
administrative body.
Memorandum Circulars act of the President
dealing with administrative details of some or all
government bureaus, offices or other agencies.
Broader compared to MO
General or Special Orders issuances of the
President in his capacity of commander in chief
of the Philippines.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT
RA 7160 Local Government Code of 1991
- This provides the LGUs with power to issue
legal legislation in the form of ordinances.
- Through this, LGUs can exercise police power
and power of eminent domain.
Sanggunian Pambarangay Barangay
Sanguniang Pambayan - Province
Sanguniang Panglungsod - City
Sanguniang Panlalawaigan Town

LGUs have the power to tax, is this a delegated power by
Congress?
No, since this is expressly provided for by the
Constitution on Section 5, Article 10.

PEOPLE
Section 32, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution
- Initiative and referendum: RA 6735

Section 2, Article 17 of the 1987 Constitution
- This deals with amendments to the Constitution
proposed by the People with a written
proposition signed by at least 12% of registered
voters of the Philippines. Provided, that each
legislative district is represented by at least 3%
of the registered voters therein.

ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
- This delegation is employed by the fact that
Congress cannot anymore handle all the task,
coupled with the growing complexity of the modern
society.

What is delegated by Congress to the Administrative
Bodies is not the power to make laws nor to determine
what the law is or what the law should be but the power to
enforce the laws enacted by Congress as it is. The
various administrative bodies are now permitted to fill-in
the gaps and fill-in the details that the Congress failed to
provide.

The Power of Subordinate Limitation
- The power of the admin bodies to fill-in the gaps
and details that the Congress has failed to
provide, due to the delegated power to enforce
laws.
- This may take form in Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR).

Rule Making Power of Administrative Bodies
Rule-making power by reason of express delegation
of authority.
Interpretation or Construction of the Law
administered by the admin body.
Ascertaining the facts upon which the enforcement
of the law is based.


Two Test to Determine the Legislative Power:
1. COMPLETENESS TEST
- The law must be complete when it reaches the
hands of the Administrative Bodies, so that there
will be nothing to interpret and all there is to do
is to apply it.

2. SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST
- Even if the law is not complete, but the
delegation is valid, if such delegation of authority
is accompanied by a sufficient standard that
would map out the boundary of the authority of
the delegate.

Does it follow that if there is a valid delegation of
authority, any and all IRR is automatically valid?
No, even if there is already a valid delegation of authority
by Congress to an administrative body, the IRR enacted
by the admin body, will not be automatically considered
as a valid IRR.
For the IRR to be valid, it must satisfy the given
requirements.

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IRR TO BE VALID:
1) Any such rules and regulations, must be
enacted pursuant to a valid law authorizing a
valid delegation of authority.
2) Promulgated within the scope authority given.
3) Promulgated in the manner prescribe by the law
delegating by the authority.
4) It must be fair and reasonable.
5) Must be published in newspaper of general
circulation or in the official gazette pursuant to
article 2 of the civil code.
6) Must be filed in the UP Law Centers.

Can admin bodies promulgate rules and regulations
which are penal in character?
It depends, since if the law delegating such authority is
defines the act of the crimes and if such law expressly
provides that the rules and regulations given by the
admin body will be the IRR for implementation of such
law, then there is no doubt the administrative may issue
rules and regulations partaking in the nature in a criminal
law.
Otherwise, administrative bodies cannot enact rules and
regulations which are penal in character.

RULE MAKING POWER OF ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES

Rule Making Power by Express Delegation of
Authority
- This type of rule-making power refers to the
authority of the administrative bodies to enact
implementing rules and regulations.
- This also refers to the power of the
administrative bodies to fill-in the gaps in the law
or to put fill-in what is lacking through enactment
of implementing rules and regulations.



Must there be a prior notice and hearing before the rules
and regulations are validly enacted? Is notice and
hearing a requirement for enacting IRR?
No, prior notice and hearing is not required before an
IRR is validly enacted, because what is important is that
this IRR are published in the official gazette and in a
newspaper of general circulation and copies thereof must
be filed in the UP Law Center. This is why prior notice
and hearing is not required.
How about a regulation fixing a rate, should there be prior
notice or hearing before an administrative body can fix a
rate, like power rate or price ceiling?
It depends, since if the fixing of rate is done pursuant to
quasi-legislative function of the administrative concerned,
then such fixing of rate would not need prior notice and
hearing.
Otherwise, if the fixing of rate is done pursuant to a
quasi-judicial function of the administrative office
concerned, in this situation prior notice and hearing is
required.
How can we distinguish that the fixing of rate is done
pursuant to a quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative function
of the administrative body?
Quasi-Legislative if the fixing of rate would affect all
enterprises or entities throughout the country.
Quasi-Judicial if the fixing of rate would affect a
particular entity only.

Rule-making Power by Construction and/or
Interpretation of the Laws being Administered

Three Kinds of Administrative Construction and/or
Interpretation
1. Administrative interpretation and/or construction as
an incident of the execution of the laws being
administered.
This would normally take the form of circulars,
orders or directives issued by the Administrative
Body/Officer concerned.

2. Legal opinion rendered by the Secretary of the Dept.
of Justice.
This may happen in a situation wherein the
administrative officer concerned is wondering on
the correct interpretation of the law he is going
to administer, if this happens the administrative
officer concerned may seek the legal opinion of
the Sec. of Dept. of Justice.

3. Construction and/or interpretation rendered by
administrative bodies in the course of settling
disputes.
This instance happened when the administrative
body rendered a construction and/or
interpretation during the settling a disputes since
administrative bodies can also exercise quasi-
judicial function.







How do we treat administrative construction or aka
contemporaneous construction? Is this binding upon the
courts of the law?
Any such construction is not binding upon the courts of
law, they may be disregarded by judicial courts if they are
erroneous, if it conflict well settled rules or jurisprudence
enunciated by the Supreme Court, but they are given a
persuasive effect since they are formulated by people
with expertise, especially if the construction or
interpretation has been followed by a long period of time.
It should also be respected if it has been ratified by
Congress.

Express Ratification
- If Congress would re-enact the law using the words or
terms which are of similar meaning with the
administrative construction compared to the words or
terms used in the old law.
- In this way, we will know that Congress is NOT
abrogating the interpretation or construction given by
the administrative body.

Implied Ratification there is no re-enactment of law but
the Congress will support the action performed by the
Administrative Body.
Example:
The law allowed people to hear disputes, but the law is silent on
whether or not a person may hire associates or coaches in
hearing disputes. But despite the silence of the law, the
administrative body provided for hearing coaches. And Congress
has given the coaches their salaries. In this case, there is an
implied ratification of the administrative interpretation given by the
Admin Body.

Where an administrative interpretation on one hand is
not necessarily binding upon the court, administrative
rules and regulations on the other hand must be
respected or followed, since they are binding upon the
courts of law especially if such rules and regulations
are promulgated within the scope of authority given to
such administrative agency

When can we say that an administrative issuance
partakes a nature of an admin interpretation or is an
administrative rule and regulation?
No, since this is expressly provided for by the
Constitution on Section 5, Article 10.

Victorious Milling, Inc. vs. Social Securities Commission
114 Phil. 55
There was an old law RA1161 defining the term
compensation for the purpose of computing SSS premium
contribution. Under RA 1161, overtime pay as well as
bonuses would not form part of compensation for premium
payments. However, RA 1161 was amended by RA 1792, and
sadly the amendment did not contain the provision whether or
not overtime pay and bonuses would form part or not of the
contribution. Taking advantage of this silence, SSC issued
administrative circular 22, providing to the end, that overtime
pay and bonuses form part of the computation for SSS
premium contribution.

The Validity of this circular was questioned.

The Supreme Court held that admin circular #22, partake the
nature of a mere administrative interpretation and/or
construction. It was merely interpretative of the amendatory
act.



When there is ambiguity of such administrative issuance, it
should be considered as a construction rather than a rule
or regulation. However, if the law is clear, then
administrative issuance would partake the nature of an
administrative rule and regulation.

Determination of Facts upon which the
Enforcement of the Law is Based

Tatad vs. Secretary of Energy GR No. 124360
This has something to do with the provision of RA 8180,
section 15, allowing the President to order the full
implementation deregulation of the oil industry.

Under section 15, of RA 8180, the President can only order
the deregulation of oil if the oil prices in the world market has
already declined and the exchange rate between the peso
and the dollar has already stabilized.

The Supreme Court said there is nothing invalid in this kind of
delegated authority since what is delegated is just the
determination of the existence of the mentioned factors in RA
8180.

CA 65, Section 20:
- This provided for monetary benefits for the war
veterans however under this provision the
President was given the authority to suspend the
operation of CA 65, if the President determines
that the Congress of the US, has already
adopted the Bill of Rights providing for the same
benefits for our Filipino veterans.

People vs. Vera
The validity of the probation act. Where the probation
depends on the capacity of the municipality to pay for the
probation officers. And if a place cannot afford the payment of
probation officers, then it follows just as clearly that the
probation law wont take effect in that place.

The Supreme Court held this law as unconstitutional for being
violative of the equal protection clause since what is
delegated was not the power to determine the existence of
the facts rather what is delegated therein is the discretion to
make that law effective in their respective provinces.

II. QUASI-JUDICIAL
Quasi-Judicial
- A term applied to the actions or discretions of
public administrative officers or bodies required to
investigate facts or ascertain the existence of
facts, hold hearings and draw conclusions from
them, as basis for their official action and to
exercise discretion of a judicial nature.

Quasi-Judicial Body
- An organ of the government other than a court and
other than the legislature, which exercises an
adjudicative power affecting the rights of private
persons.
- Its basic function is to adjudicate claims and/or
determine rights and unless its decisions
reasonably appealed to the proper reviewing
authority, the same attains finality and executory.


Circumstances which indicates that the administrative
body is performing its Quasi-Judicial Function:
The determination of whether there is a law that
gives rise to rights involving persons or properties
and the law provides that any conflicting or adverse
claims, may be presented before a tribunal for
adjudication.
If the function involves a decision which will attain
finality at some point in time. Otherwise, if the
decision would not attain a finality, then the function
is said to be done in furtherance to its, quasi-
legislative or administrative function.
In the performance of quasi-judicial function, an
administrative body/officer conducts hearing
before rendering a decision in that particular
matter:
Reception of evidence
The administrative body/officer will draw facts
and conclusion out of the evidence presented.

Why is it important for us to determine whether the
nature of the function being performed is quasi-judicial or
quasi-legislative?
For REMEDIES
If the function is performed in furtherance quasi-judicial
function of admin body or officer, then it is imperative for
us as a general rule the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies.
As a rule, one cannot have a direct recourse to the courts
of law. Otherwise, if the function being performed is
purely administrative function or quasi-legislative
function, then direct recourse to the courts of law is
allowed.
It is in this context that it is important for us to know,
whether the function performed by the admin body/officer
is quasi-judicial or not.
Quasi-Judicial Court of Appeals
Challenge RR of admin bodies RTC

For ARBITRARY POWERS
It is important for us to distinguish whether or not the
administrative body performs a quasi-judicial or
legislative function or purely administrative functions to
know the powers that a particular admin body may
exercise.

REQUISITES OF VALID EXERCISE OF QUASI-
JUDICIAL FUNCTION
Jurisdiction must be conferred by a law.
Observance of due process


VALID JURISDICTION CONFERRING JURISDICTION
Can administrative bodies adjudicate cases involving
human rights violation?
No, because there is no provision conferring upon the
Human Rights Commission to perform quasi-judicial
functions.
There is nothing in 1987 Constitution empowering the
Human Rights Commission to decide or adjudicate cases
involving human rights violation. It can conduct fact-
finding investigation, it can recommend the prosecution
of cases but it cannot adjudicate cases.



The exercise of quasi-judicial function to be valid must be
pursuant to a validly conferred jurisdiction. And jurisdiction
must be conferred by a law. There has to be a law
empowering a particular administrative body or officer the
power to perform quasi-judicial function.


OBSERVANCE OF DUE PROCESS
Section 1, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
- No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.

2 ASPECT OF DUE PROCESS
1. Substantive Due Process
- This refers to the intrinsic validity of a law or
administrative regulation.
- The point in inquiry here is whether or not
there is valid governmental objective.

Without such valid governmental objective any and such
administrative regulation is intrinsically invalid or it does
not conform with substantial due process

2. Procedural Due Process
- This refers to the manner in which a law or an
administrative regulation is enforced.
- This has something to do with a law which
hears before it condemns, sees upon inquiry
and renders judgment only after trial. (Daniel
Webster)

Exceptions to the Essential Requisite of Notice and
Hearing:
1. The cancellation of the passport of a person
sought for the commission of a crime.
2. The preventive suspension of a civil servant facing
administrative charges.
3. The confiscation of properties for tax delinquency.
4. The padlock of restaurants found to be insanitary
or of theatres showing obscene movies.
5. Extradite Proceeding: evaluation done by the
Department of Justice when there is no case filed
yet.
6. The abatement of nuisance per se.
7. Issuance of warrant arrest
8. Issuance of a TRO
- The reason for this is even if the issuance of a TRO
is ex parte, a subsequent hearing is made, giving
the other party a chance to be heard.

Difference between NUISANCE PER SE and PER
ACCIDENS:
Nuisance Per Se objectionable at all times since it
presents an immediate danger to the welfare of the
community.
Nuisance Per Accidens
- Objectionable only under certain conditions but not at
all circumstances, since there are situations when it is
perfectly acceptable and legitimate.
- A right thing in the wrong place



ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS/REQUISITES FOR PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS AS APPLIED IN QUASI-JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING:
1. The right to a hearing which includes the right to
present ones case and submit evidence presented.
- This does not have to be a trial type hearing,
what is enough is there is submission of
evidence by the parties concerned.

Is it necessary that all parties must submit their evidence
in administrative proceedings?
No, it does not need that all parties present their
evidence. What is required in administrative proceeding
is just the giving of opportunity to be heard, if one party
did not present their evidence, then it is the fault of the
party.

2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
3. The decision must have something to support itself.
4. The evidence must be substantial.
5. The decision must be based on the evidenced
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
records and disclosed to the parties affected.
6. The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on
its own or his own independent consideration of the
law and facts of controversy and not simply accept
the views of subordinates.
7. The board or body should in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various
issues involved, and the reason for the decision
rendered.
8. The officer or tribunal conducting the investigation
must be vested with competent jurisdiction and so
constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty
and impartiality.

***missing March 8 discussion***

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
- The case is cognizable before the courts of law,
only that there are issues in that particular case
which needs to be referred first to an
administrative body, which has the competence
to tackle that particular issue.
- This is the reason, why the court will not dismiss
case it will only suspend the proceeding until the
issue is final determined.
- The relationship is lateral in a sense that if a
case is cognizable by a court of law but there
are issues therein which needs the competence
of the administrative body, you will be referred to
that administrative agency.
- It is the courts of law which has the original
jurisdiction of the case.
- The result under this doctrine is only suspension
of the case.




Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies
- The one having jurisdiction over the case is not
the courts of law but the administrative agency
concerned.
- Under this doctrine, any and all remedies
available under the administrative structure must
be availed of before one can seek recourse/
refuge in any courts of law.
- The recourse is ascending.
- The administrative body has original jurisdiction
of the case.
- The result under this doctrine is dismissal of the
action.
Agency Bureau Department Office of the President (if allowed)
Court of Law

What will happen if it determined in a case, that the
administrative remedies are not exhausted by the
parties?
S section 1 (j) on Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which
provides that the motion to file a condition precedent is
not complied with.
The non-exhaustion of administrative remedies does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court, it only affects the cause
of action on the part of the petitioner or plaintiff.
If this doctrine is not observed then there is prematurity
of the filing of the case before the courts of law.

EXCEPTIONS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
1. When there is violation of due process.
2. When the issue involved is purely legal question.
- The reason for this is that administrative bodies does
not have the competence to resolve the validity or
invalidity of a law.

3. When the administrative action is patently illegal
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
4. When there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency concerned.
5. When there is irreparable injury.
6. When the respondent is department secretary
whose acts as an alter ego of the President hears
the implied and assumed approval of the latter.
7. When to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be reasonable.
8. When it would amount to a nullification of a claim.
9. When the subject matter is a private land in land
cases or proceedings.
10. When the rule does not provide a plain speedy and
adequate remedy.
11. There are circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicial intervention.

Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
- If the Dept. Secretary rendered a decision, which
was appealed to the Office of the President and
later appealed to the Court of Appeals
Petition of Certiorari, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
- If the Dept. Secretary rendered a decision, instead
of appealing to the President, the party decided to
appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
If any or all of the given situation for the non-exhaustion
of administrative remedy is present, is the party obliged
to seek refuge directly to the courts of law?
No, while one is permitted to seek recourse to the courts
of law, one is not mandated to directly take refuge to the
courts of law. One has the option to appeal to a higher
administrative authority before filing to any courts of law.

III. What can Check Administrative function

THE PRESIDENT
General Rule:
The president has only supervisory power over LGUs.

Exception:
Section 23 of Local Government Code
- This provides that the President can suspend
the following:
Elected provincial official.
Elected official of an independent
component city
Elected official of a highly urbanized city

CONGRESS
- Congress can act to abolish an administrative office.
- Power of proclamation of Congress.
- Inquiry in aid of legislation.
- Enacting appropriation laws

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
- For acts done by an administrative body purely
on administrative function.

COURT OF APPEALS
- For acts done by an administrative body in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial function.
- Under Rule 43 of Rules of Court, may raise
questions of law and facts or a mixture of both.
-

SUPREME COURT
- Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, questioning
the decision of the Court of Appeals.

- Under Rule 65, directly to the Supreme Court on
the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

OMBUDSMAN
- Prosecutory power

Who are those covered under the disciplinary power of
the ombudsman?
Generally, the ombudsman has disciplinary authority
over all elective and appointive public officials. Except,
members of congress, members of the judiciary and the
impeachable officers such as the President, V-President,
Chief Justice of SC and its associate justices and
members of the various constitutional commissions.





Since the President, V-President, Chief Justice and
associate justices of the Supreme Court and members of
the constitutional commission is beyond the scope of
power of the ombudsman, does this mean that they are
beyond the investigative power of the ombudsman?
Even those these officers are beyond the power of the
ombudsman, just the same the ombudsman can still
investigate upon them only for the purpose of filing a
verified complaint. But this does not follow that the
ombudsman can preventively suspend them.
Can the ombudsman investigate private individuals?
Yes, if these private individuals are in conspiracy with
public officials.
Is it only the ombudsman who can investigate the erring
public official?
No, other agency can investigate too, such as the NBI
and PCGG.
Are there offenses wherein the ombudsman can only
investigate?
Generally, the disciplinary of the ombudsman is shared
with other administrative agency, except those offenses
which falls upon the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan:
Offenses punishable by imprisonment of not less than
6 years and a fine not less than P6, 000.
If a public official committed a crime not in connection
with the performance of his public duties, will that be
covered by the Disciplinary authority of the ombudsman?
Yes, since what is important is that the offenses is
committed by a public official. However, such offense can
only be filed before a regular court.
A criminal case be filed before the ombudsman, and
ombudsman rendered a decision remanding the case a
regular court, can you file a motion for reconsideration?
Yes, one can file for a motion for reconsideration within a
period of 5 days.
You are a public official facing an administrative case
before the ombudsman (respondent), you were acquitted;
can the complainant file a motion for reconsideration?
Yes, the respondent file a motion for reconsideration
within a period of 10 days
The complainant on the other hand cannot,





Investigatory Powers of the Ombudsman
CRIMINAL CASES
- In a criminal case filed before the ombudsman, a
motion for reconsideration is allowed regardless of
the decision by any of the opposite party. Whether
the decision is an acquittal or guilty verdict towards
the respondent.
It should be filed within a period of 5 days reckoned
by the time of receipt of the decision.

APPEAL FOR CRIMINAL CASES
- If the motion for reconsideration is denied by the
ombudsman, the aggrieved party may question the
resolution of the ombudsman and even appeal its
original decision before the Supreme Court via a
petition of Certiorari via Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
General Rule:
- In administrative cases, a motion for
reconsideration is allowed.
Except:
When the complaint is dismissed.
When what is meted out to the public official is either
public censure, reprimand, suspension not
exceeding 30 days or a fine not exceeding a 30 day
salary.
- In this cases, only the aggrieved respondent can
file a motion for reconsideration. The complainant
cannot file anymore.
It should be filed within a period of 15 days reckoned
by the time of receipt of the decision.

APPEAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
- The aggrieved party can appeal its cases with the
Supreme Court under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
- And if still aggrieved with the decision of the C.A.;
the party can still appeal its cases under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court on
ground of pure question of law


























Prepared by: CMA -- Success is 10X sweeter if all your friends succeed with you.

Вам также может понравиться