Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

V.

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE


DECISIONS
Judicial review keeps the admin agency within its
jurisdiction and protects substantial rights of the
parties affected by its decisions. Judicial review is
proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error of
law, grave abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion,
or in case the admin decision is corrupt, arbitrary
or capricious

A. Factors Affecting Finality of
Administrative Decisions
Switchmens Union of North America v
National Mediation Board: Where Congress
has not expressly authorized judicial review, the
following become highly relevant in determining
whether judicial review may nonetheless be
supplied (1) the type of problem involved (2)
history of the statute in question.
Fortich v. Corona: Thus, the act of the Office of
the President in re-opening the case and
substantially modifying its March 29,1996
Decision which had already become final and
executory, was in gross disregard of the rules
and basic legal precept that accord finality to
administrative determinations.

Antique v. Zayco: Even administrative decisions
must and sometime, as fully as public policy
demands that finality be written on judicial
controversies. Public policy and sound practice
demand that, at the risk of occasional errors,
judgments of courts should become final at some
definite date fixed by law. The very object for
which courts were instituted was to put an end to
controversy

Sotto v. Ruiz: If it is a question of law, then it is
within the ambit of judicial review.

Uy v. Palomar: The Postmaster General here
asserts that his decision is beyond judicial review
of the courts the same not having been given in
the Postal Law. The SC here ruled that although
the allegation of the Postmaster General is
correct (GENERAL RULE), the absence of
statutory provisions for judicial review does not
necessarily mean that access to the courts is
barred the exception being decisions of such
agencies that exceed its authority or are palpably
wrong.
Manuel v. Villena: When there is grave abuse of
discretion, judicial review is available.
San Miguel v. Secretary of Labor: The issue
was w/n an administrative decision may be
reviewed by the court. The SC here again held
the GENERAL RULE is NO, since the
administrative agencies possess the necessary
technical expertise to make the determinations
on their own. However the EXCEPTION lies when
there is: (1)Lack/excess of jurisdiction (2) Grave
abuse of discretion (3) Error of law (4) Collusion
(5) A Decision Illegal for violating or failing to
comply with a mandatory provision of law (6) A
decision that is corrupt, arbitrary, or capricious.

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Requisites: (1) Administrative agency is
performing a quasi judicial function (2) Judicial
review is available (3) The court acts in its
appellate jurisdiction
Reasons/Purposes: Legal: the law prescribes
procedures for exhaustion.
Practical: to give an agency the chance to correct
itself and for purposes of expediency
Remedy: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Cause of
Action.
The same must be seasonably raised or deemed
waived
Pascual v. Provincial Board: The SC here held
that the circumstances of the case were an
exception to the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies as what the case
pertained to was a legal question (w/n an
officials acts during his first term may be subject
of disciplinary charges during his 2nd term.)
Alzate v. Aldana: A mandamus was filed by the
principal of the school violating the rule on
Exhaustion of Administrative remedies there
being the need to have dispensation of the
teachers salaries before the end of the fiscal year
to avoid the reversion of the funds. The SC here
held it as another EXCEPTION to the rule since
appeal to the administrative hierarchy would be
unavailing considering the urgency of the
situation and the damage impending.
Cipriano v. Marcelino: It is altogether too
obvious that to require the petitioner Cipriano to
go all the way to the President of the Philippines
on appeal in the matter of the collection of the
small total P949, would not only be oppressive
but would be patently unreasonable. By the time
her appeal shall have been decided by the
President, the amount of much more than P949,
which is the total sum of her claim, would in all
likelihood have been spent.
Corpuz v. Cuaderno: The Court held that
appeals to the CSC and President are merely
permissive and not mandatory as there are no
laws requiring appeals exclusively to the
President. Hence exception
De Lara v. Clorivel: rule regarding exhaustion
of administrative remedies may be relaxed when
its application may cause great and irreparable
damage which cannot otherwise be prevented
except by taking the opportune appropriate
action
Paredes v. CA: The SC held that the exhaustion
of remedies rule is applicable as the enabling law
tasked the Cabinet to review and approve any
proposed revisions of rates of fees and charges.
Petitioners should have availed of this easy and
accessible remedy instead of immediately
resorting to the judicial process as the courts.
Quasha v. SEC: The SC held that with just 6
days before the deadline there was no need to
exhaust administrative remedies and that they
properly filed the petition with the SC without
going through the prescribed procedure of filing
before the SEC en banc
Republic v. Sandiganbayan: this case falls
under 2 exceptions on the application of the
doctrine: 1) estoppel on the part of the agency
by laches; 2) where the challenged
administrative act is patently illegal amounting to
lack of jurisdiction as it was beyond the power of
the PCGG to issue the search and seizure orders.
PAAT v. CA: Exceptions to exhaustion:
1. There is violation of due process;
2. Issue involved is a purely legal question;
3. The admin action is patently illegal amounting
to lack/excess of jurisdiction;
4. Estoppel on the agency's part;
5. There is irreparable injury;
6. Respondent is a dept. secretary whose acts as
an alter ego of the Pres bears the implied and
assumed approval of the latter;
7. To require exhaustion of admin remedies
would be unreasonable;
8. It would amount to nullification of the claim;
9. Subject matter is private land in land case
proceeding;
10. Rule does not provide a plain, speedy &
adequate remedy;
11. Circumstances indicate the urgency of judicial
intervention
12. Where the claim involved is small
13. Quo Warranto (Lopez v. City of Manila)
DAR v. Apex Investment: Exception in this
case: circumstances indicating the urgency of
judicial intervention; and the administrative
action is patently illegal and amounts to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
Smart v. NTC: In questioning the validity or
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by
an administrative agency, a party need no
exhaust administrative remedies before going to
court as this principle applies only where the act
of the administrative agency concerned was
performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function
and not when the assailed act pertained to its
rule-making or quasi-legislative power. The scope
of judicial power includes the authority of the
courts to determine in an appropriate action the
validity of the acts of the political departments.

Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges: The CHED
does not have the power to award damages. She
could not have commenced her case before the
CHED. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is
applicable when there is competence on the part
of the administrative body to act upon the matter
complained of.
CSC v. Dept of Budget and Management: 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
is not mandated by law to seek clarification from
the DBM Secretary prior to filing this action. A
direct invocation of the SC's original jurisdiction
may be allowed where there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition

C. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary Resort
There is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the
court and the administrative agency such that
there is a choice as to which body the relief shall
be sought. This doctrine does not apply where
the law grants exclusive jurisdiction to a body.
Requisites: (1)Admin body and regular court
have concurrent and original jurisdiction (2)
Question to be resolved requires expertise of
administrative agency (3) Legislative intent on
the matter is to have uniformity in rulings (4)
Administrative agency is performing a quasi-
judicial function not rule making or quasi-
legislative function.
Doctrine is inapplicable: (1) Agency has exclusive
jurisdiction (2) Issue is not within the
competence of the admin body to act on (3)
Issue involved is clearly a factual question.
Effect: Case is not suspended but merely
suspended.
Grule: Courts will not intervene if the question to
be resolved is one which requires the expertise of
administrative agencies and the legislative intent
on the matter is to have uniformity in the rulings.
It can only occur where there is a concurrence of
jurisdiction between the court and the admin
agency.
Texas v. Abilene: Courts will not intervene if
the question to be resolved is one which requires
the expertise of administrative agencies and the
legislative intent on the matter is to have
uniformity in the rulings. It can only occur where
there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the
court and the administrative agency. It is a
question of the court yielding to the agency
because of the latters expertise, and does not
amount to ouster of the court.
Phil Global Communications v. Relova:
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction does not apply
since NTC had no competence to act on questions
which were purely legal. The doctrine calls for
application when there is such competence to act
on the part of an administrative body.
Industrial Enterprises v. CA: However, 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. This is
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. It applies
"where a claim is originally cognizable in the
courts, and comes into play whenever
enforcement of the claim requires the resolution
of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have
been placed within the special competence of an
administrative body, in such case the judicial
process is suspended pending referral of such
issues to the administrative body for its view.
D. Standing to Challenge
Legal standing means a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result
of the governmental act that is being challenged
The technical rules on standing comes from the
general doctrine of separation of powers as there
is a need for an actual case or controversy before
judicial review becomes available
Standing as opposed to real party-in-interest: the
former is a constitutional law concept which only
concerns the petitioner, while the latter is a
concept in procedural law which concerns both
the petitioner/plaintiff and the
respondent/defendant.
Note: Standing issue should be resolved in its
own. No standing. No case. It is irrelevant
whether or not the case is meritorious. The
merits of the case should not be a factor in the
consideration of locus standi. (Association of Data
Processing)
Ursal v. CTA: The rulings of the Board of
Assessment Appeals did not "adversely affect"
the city assessor. At most it was the City of Cebu
that had been adversely affected in the sense
that it could not thereafter collect higher realty
taxes from the abovementioned property owners.
Acting Collector v. CTA: Only persons,
associations or corporations whose pecuniary and
proprietary interests are adversely affected by a
decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue,
Commissioner of Customs, or provincial or city
Board of Assessments Appeals may appeal to the
CTA.
Lozada v. v. COMELEC: Taxpayer's suit is
proper only when the act complained of, which
may include a legislative enactment or statute,
involves the illegal expenditure of public funds.
Taxpayer's suits cannot lie upon the mere
generalized interest of all the citizens because
such kind of interest is so abstract in nature.
Concreteness of an injury, may it be actual or
threatened, makes a dispute capable of judicial
resolution.
As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the
petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax
money is being illegally spent. The act
complained of is the inaction of the COMELEC to
call a special election, as is allegedly its
ministerial duty under the constitutional provision
cited, and therefore, involves no expenditure of
public funds.
Oposa v. Factoran: As to the propriety of
generations yet unborn, it is valid under the
concept of intergenerational responsibility with
respect to the right to a balanced and healthy
ecology.
Joya v. PCGG: The term "interest" is material
interest, an interest in issue and to be affected
by the decree, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved, or a mere
incidental interest. Moreover, the interest of the
party plaintiff must be personal and not one
based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional
right of some third and related party.
Kilosbayan v. Guingona: As a general rule, a
person impugning validity of a statute must have
a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of its enforcement.
An EXCEPTION to this is transcendental
importance to the public in which case the Court
wants to settle the issue definitively as soon as
possible.
Kilosbayan v. Morato: Questions of
constitutionality: legal standing. Otherwise: real
party in interest (because this is a civil case)
Domingo v. Carague: Petitioners have not
shown any direct and personal interest in the
COA Organizational Restructuring Plan. There is
no indication that they have sustained or are in
imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury
as a result of its implementation.
Association of Data Processing v. Camp:
Petitioner satisfied the test for standing. This
case rejected the "legal interest" test and
established that a plaintiff may sue provided he is
"injured in fact.
1. Legal interest test
Old test used in prior cases; CA used this
test and found petitioner without standing;
Court, however, held here that this test was
not fit to determine standing since it already
involved the merits of the case which should
not be. (See above, separate issue ang
standing)
2. Public interest test
Another test used by the CA to find
petitioner without standing; Court ruled,
however, that this was inapplicable since
the test only applied to plaintiffs who were
significantly involved to have standing to
represent the public
3. Case or controversy test
Introduced in Flast v. Cohen; capacity of
dispute to be presented in an adversary
context and in a form capable of judicial
resolution. However, Court qualified that
Flast was a taxpayer's suit whereas case at
bar was a competitior's suit. (see Simon v
Eastern Kentucky below)
4. Injury in fact test
Whether the plaintiff alleges that the
challenged action has caused him injury in
fact, economic or otherwise. Petitioner
alleged probably profit loss from the new
competitor.
5. Zone of interest test
Whether the interest sought to be protected
by the complainant is arguably within the
zone of interests to be protected or
regulated by the statute or constitutional
guarantee in question; a measure of self-
restraint for the Court.

Sierra v. Morton: No injury-in-fact showed
because the Petitioner asserted no individualized
harm to itself or its members. Supreme Court
held that the Sierra Club, in its corporate
capacity, lacked standing.
Lujan v. National Wildlife: Respondent failed
to show 2 requisites to claim right to judicial
review: 1) person must specify a final agency
action that affects him; 2) person must prove
that he is adversely affected by the final agency
action within the meaning of regular statute.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: Standing
requires a concrete, discernible injuryactual or
imminent and not a "conjectural or hypothetical
one"injury in fact this is the first of 3 elements
of constitutional minimum for standing: 2) causal
connection between injury and act complained of;
3.) it is likely as opposed to speculative that
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
E. Ripeness
Fitness of issues for judicial determination.
Abbot v Gardner: The basic rationale of
ripeness is (1) to prevent the courts, through
avoidance of premature adjudication, from
entangling themselves in abstract disagreements
over administrative policies, and also (2) to
protect the agencies from judicial interference
until an administrative decision has been
formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way
by the challenging parties.
TWO-FOLD ASPECT/TEST:
1. FITNESS for judicial decision: Purely legal
questions agreed upon by both parties (only
questions of law; should NOT involve policy
making function)
2. HARDSHIP OF PARTIES of withholding Court
consideration: (1) Must be a final agency action
There is no hint that this regulation is informal
or only the ruling of a subordinate official, or
tentative. (2) Consider: added cost to parties,
possibility of instituting a criminal action against
disobedient party, etc.
National Automatic Laundry v. Schultz:
Ripeness involves an inquiry to; 1) the finality;
but also to 2) the presumption of reviewability of
issues. General Ripeness Considerations are; 1)
WON there is a congressional intent to negative
judicial review, 2) the possibility of courts
entangling themselves in abstract disagreement
over administrative policies due to premature
adjudication; and 3) the fitness of issues for
judicial determination and hardship to the parties
of withholding court consideration.

VI. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1987 CONSTITUTION: Article IX Sec. 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 is 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 129 Sec 9. (See Rule 43 also) The Court of
Appeals shall exercise:
Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes,
whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts;
and
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decision, resolutions, orders or
awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions, including the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Social Security
Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission,
except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance
with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, the provisions of this Act, and of sub-
paragraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of
Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
B. Certiorari
Requisites: (1) Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. (2) No plain, adequate or speedy
remedy. (3) Administrative agency performing a
quasi-judicial function. It cannot be invoked if it
is a ministerial function.
Purpose: To set aside and nullify proceedings.
St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC: In the
case of NLRC decisions, the intent of the
legislature was to make a special civil action for
certiorari as the proper vehicle for review. Thus,
all references in the law to appeals from the
NLRC to the SC must be interpreted to mean
petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. All such
petitions must initially be filed in the CA following
the hierarchy of courts.
Police Commission v. Bello: While findings of
facts of administrative bodies are entitled to
great weight and should not generally be
disturbed, there is grave abuse of discretion
justifying the issuance of the writ of certiorari
when there is such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion, prejudice or personal hostility amounting
to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at
all in contemplation of law.
Purefoods v. NLRC: It must emphatically be
reiterated, since so often is it overlooked, that
the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy
designed for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.
Villaruel v. NLRC: A petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not include a
correction of its evaluation of the evidence but is
confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse
of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is
committed when the judgment is rendered in a
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic
manner.
Hadji Sirad v. CSC: Doctrine of case is that a
special civil action for certiorari can only be taken
when there is no other plain and speedy remedy.
Here there was one as instead of going directly to
the SC, an appeal from the CSC decision finding
her guilty of grave misconduct could have been
taken to the CA by appeal.

C. Prohibition
It is preventive and not for acts already
performed. Issues on the same grounds as
certiorari. Not only quasi-judicial but also
ministerial. (1) Grave Abuse and (2) No other
speedy remedy.
Purpose: To prohibit or stop proceedings.
Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board: . If the
alienage of the Chua Hiong is not denied, the
Board's jurisdiction and its proceedings are
unassailable; if the respondent is admittedly a
citizen, or conclusively shown to be such, the
Board lacks jurisdiction and its proceedings are
null and void ab initio and may be summarily
enjoined in the courts. When the evidence
submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his
citizenship, the right to immediate review should
also be recognized and the courts should
promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings.
However, it is neither expedient nor wise that the
right to a judicial determination should be
allowed in all cases; it should be granted only in
cases when the courts themselves believe that
there is substantial evidence supporting the claim
of citizenship, so substantial that there are
reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is
correct. In other words, the remedy should be
allowed only in the sound discretion of a
competent court in a proper proceeding.\
Co v. Deportation Board: While doctrine of
primary jurisdiction wherein the administrative
agency, such as the Deportation Board in this
case, must be given the opportunity to decide the
matter before it before the courts could
intervene, the doctrine is not applied in proper
cases where right to immediate judicial review
should be recognized such as in this case as
recognized in Calacday v Vivo where it stated
that the Chua Hiong decision is an exception to
the rule.
Paredes v. CA: SC said that prohibition is
granted only where no other remedy which is
sufficient to afford redress is available. Here, the
law itself provided that increases of rates would
still have to be approved by the cabinet, since
the approval was not yet given, prohibition is
premature.

D. Mandamus
Mandamus is an order compelling a party to
perform an act arising out of a positive duty
imposed by law. It will only lie against a
ministerial duty when the official/agency refuses
to exercise it. It will not lie to enforce a
contractual obligation. Specific performance is
the remedy.
Requisites: (1) Duty is ministerial (2) Petitioner
has a clear and controlling right (3) No other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
Blanco v. Board of Examiners: SC said that
mandamus does not lie, duty of the Secretary
was discretionary to confirm or not confirm the
results, he had to determine w/n the results were
credible. Act of confirming is NOT a ministerial
duty.
Ng Gioc Lu v. DFA: act of issuing a visa is
discretionary, particularly because the consular
office in China is in the best position to determine
w/n the return of Ng Gioc Lu to the Philippines is
a threat to public safety.
Policarpio v. Phil. Veterans Board: Mandamus
does not lie when the action calls for the review
of an action or decision of a Board granted with
discretion, and when such action or decision
involves the construction of the law and the
application of the facts thereto.
Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission:
Mandamus lies because after proving that Tan
was a member of a guerilla organization
recognized by the US army, it becomes
ministerial to approve the release of backpay.
Pangasinan v. Reparation Commission:
Reparations goods were not transferred to
Pangasinan because respondent did not yet sign
the contract to convey the goods to the province.
SC said mandamus will not lie to enforce
contractual obligations. Mandamus is based on
the ministerial duty imposed by law, while
specific performance is based on contract.
Cruz v. CA: Mandamus will not issue to (1)
compel an official to do anything which is not his
duty to do (2) give the applicxnt anything to
which he is not entitled to law.
It is simply a command to exercise a power
already possessed and to perform a duty already
imposed.
PRC v. De Guzman: Filed petition for
mandamus to compel the PRC to register them as
licensed physicians, but SC said that mandamus
will not lie as such registration is discretionary
because licenses shall be issued only to those
who have satisfactorily complied with the
requirements of the Board, the operative word is
satisfactorily, the determination of satisfactory
compliance is discretionary.

E. Declaratory Relief
May be brought by a person interested under a
deed, will, contract or other written instrument or
by a person whose rights are affected by a
statute, executive order or regulation or
ordinance before breach or violation of his right.
The power to grant declaratory relief is
discretionary with the courts and they may refuse
to exercise the power to declare rights and to
construe instruments in cases where;
1. A decision would not terminate the uncertainty
or controversy which gave rise to the action; and
2. In any case where the declaration of
construction not necessary and proper at the
time and under all circumstances.

Requisites: (1) Subject matter must be a deed,
will contract or written instrument in which the
petitioner is legally interested, or governmental
regulation which affects his rights. (2) Terms of
the written instrument are doubtful and requires
construction (3) Filed before breach. (4) Actual
justiciable controversy (5) ripe for adjudication
(6) administrative remedies have been
exhausted, adequate means are still available
through other forms of action or proceeding
Azajar v. Ardalles: Azajar brought an action for
declaratory relief to declare his citizenship. SC
said declaratory relief is the improper remedy,
there is a proper administrative procedure for the
declaration of citizenship, it must be what must
be resorted to.
De Borja v. Villadolid: SC said declaratory relief
would not lie since it should be filed before the
breach of law, here there has already been a
breach, he proceeded to catch fish without a
license, he should have sought declaratory relief
first before proceeding without a license.
NDSC v. Meer: SC said that the removal of the
proviso was to make the application
discretionary, the law would allow the taxpayer
the remedy of declaratory relief when the tax is
not yet due, but not when it is due.
DR is no proper when a taxpayer questions his
tax liability. Remedy is to pay first then sue
afterwards for recovery so that there is no delay
in collection of taxes./
Mirando v. Wellington: Requisites for the
applicability of DR: 1) Justiciable controversy; 2)
Adverse interests between parties 3) petitioner
has Legal Interest in the controversy; 4)
Ripeness. Not all are present thus it must fail for
lack of sufficient cause of action.
F. Habeas Corpus
The great writ of liberty is intended as a speedy
remedy to secure the release of a person
deprived of his liberty.
Requisites: (1) There is illegal confinement or
detention (2) Illegal restrain of liberty (3)
Rightful custody of any person is withheld from
the person entitled thereto.
Mejoff v. Director of Prison: . 2 Habeas
Corpus cases 1st, denied because his detention
was necessary for the process of his deportation,
2nd was granted because it was for an
unreasonable length of time (2 years), the
government could have adequately found ways to
repatriate him to Russia. Here, it was shown that
the writ does not apply to Philippine citizens
alone.
Co v. Deportation Board: Habeas corpus may
issue in deportation cases "in cases when the
courts themselves believe that there is
substantial evidence supporting the claim of
citizenship, so substantial that there are
reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is
correct, In other words, the remedy should be
allowed only in sound discretion of a competent
court in a proper proceeding.
Lucien Tran v. Liwag: Habeas corpus petition
mooted by the fact that he posted bail and hence
is already granted liberty. Also, other events
have supervened, deportation proceedings have
actually taken place and hence his arrest,
although initially illegal, is now legal as it is for
the purpose of the proceedings.

G. Injunction as a Provisional Remedy
It is an ancillary remedy provided to preserve the
petitioners rights while the main action is
pending.
It may be used (1) to prevent the commission of
certain acts complained of (2) Order the
continued performance of some act for the
purpose of preventing injury.
Grounds: (1) Plaintiff is entitled to the relief
demanded (2) Commission or continuance of act
would probably work injustice to him (3)
Defendant is doing, threatens or about to do an
act in violation of petitioners right which may
rended the judgment ineffective. If plaintiff
wins, injunction is permanent. If he loses,
dissolved.
Types:
i. Preliminary Mandatory Injunction Plaintiff
wants to compel defendant to do something
ii. Preliminary Injunction To prevent or to stop
defendant from doing something
iii. Restraining Order Life span is 20 days then
hearing is held to decide propriety of injunction
iv. Permanent injunction If plaintiff wins the
case, injunction becomes permanent.
Collector v Reyes: Injunction cannot be had
when a taxpayer questions his tax liability.
However, SC saw an exception (Sec. 11 of RA
1125): When in the CTAs opinion, the collection
by BIR may jeopardize the Governments and/or
the taxpayers interest, the court may at any
stage suspend the old collection
Pineda v. Lantin: CFI has no jurisdiction to
grant the prohibition. Orders of the SEC
commissioner may be reviewed only by the SC.
Lemi v. Valencia: When the law requires a
hearing before the denial of an application to
operate a radio station, the seizure of the
stations radio equipment is illegal. The
preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the
return of the confiscated transmitter is proper.
Courts should exercise great care in issuing a writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction bec it
requires one of the parties to perform a positive
act, as opposed to merely maintaining the status
quo.
*Preliminary Mandatory Injunction will be
granted in the following cases: (1) Cases of
extreme urgency (2) Where petitioners right is
clear (3) Relative inconvenience are strongly in
his favor (4) There is a willful invasion of
petitioners right, injury being a continuous one
(5) Restore the status quo.
Honda v. San Diego: Writ of
injunction/prohibition may be issued against a
court only by a superior court.
Nocnoc v. Vera: Maranang filed in the CFI a
complaint for injunction to enjoin execution. CFI
granted, saying that it could take cognizance of
the complaint as it was a court of general
jurisdiction, despite the fact that it had no
appellate jurisdiction. CFI may not enjoin the
WCU. The proper forum to question the validity
of WCUs award is the Workmens Compensation
Commission, then to the SC if appealed further.
Court of general jurisdiction is merely
descriptive and does not confer jurisdiction.

VII. EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
A. Law and Fact Distinction
The distinction between law and fact is important
to make because reviewing courts can look into
determinations of fact by the lower courts
(bodies) only if the same are unsupported by
substantial evidence. If they are so supported,
then the appellate courts are bound to such
findings of fact. Questions of law, however, are
always reviewable by the higher courts.
The distinction, for practical purposes seem
empty. Lawyers can validly argue that a question
of fact is in fact a question of law because when
the interpretation of the law is necessarily related
to the determination of the facts, then they form
part of the review and are too questions of law
which the appellate court may look into.
Dauan v. Secretary: The records of the Bureau
of Lands had been destroyed so circumstantial
evidence had to be introduced, and the rule now
is that the conclusion drawn from these facts is a
conclusion of law which the courts may review.
Reyes v. Reyes: The law presumes that the
worker had died in the ordinary course of his
employment. The employer must present
substantial evidence to overcome this
presumption, which the employer failed to do.
(Sufficiency of evidence to overcome a
presumption of law is a question of law)
Aboitiz v. Pepito: The claim only stated that the
crew member was missing; thus when the
petitioner failed to controvert the claim, it only
admitted that the crew member was missing, not
that he was dead. Non-controversion in
compensation cases (and ordinary civil cases)
simply means admissions of facts, not
conclusions of law. (The question of law herein is
the question of whether the crew member is dead
or not.)

B. Question of Law
A question of law exists when the doubt or
controversy concerns the correct application of
law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or
when the issue does not call for an examination
of the probative value of the evidence presented,
the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.
What may be questioned?
(1)Constitutionality of the Statute creating
the agency and granting its powers;
(2) Validity of the agency action if this
transcends the limit established by law;
(3) Correctness of the agencys
interpretation and application of the law.

Ortua v Singson Encarnacion: However, any
action of the Director of Lands which is based
upon a misconstruction of the law can be
corrected by the courts. The question of law
herein is Ortuas citizenship
Mejia v. Mapa: SC is not unmindful of the
doctrine that a decision rendered by the Director
of Lands and approved by the Secretary upon a
question of fact is conclusive and not subject to
be reviewed by the courts. But this does not
apply herein, because here the decision of the
Director was NOT approved, but was revoked by
the Secretary
Ysmael v. Santos: The argument against
majority is contrary to the findings of fact of
the lower court, which was based on a list of the
salesmen or agents affiliated to the Union.
Hence, said findings may not be disturbed in this
proceeding for review by certiorari.
OLeary v. Brown Pacific Maxon: The
determination of W/N the accident arose out of,
or in the course of Valeks employment is a
question of law that is cognizable by the courts.
The question of W/N an employer-employee
relationship existed between Valak and BPMI is
also a question of law
All that is required is that the "obligations or
conditions" of employment create the "zone of
special danger" out of which the injury arose.
OKeefe v. Smith: Inferences drawn by the DC
are to be accorded great weight, unless they are
unsupported by substantial evidence. SC held
that the DC was correct in finding that the
conditions of employment created the zone of
special danger out of which the injury arose.

C. Question of Fact
A question of fact exists when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
facts, or when the query invites calibration of the
whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility
of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of
specific surrounding circumstances, as well as
their relation to each other and to the whole, and
the probability of the situation.
Reviewing courts can look into determinations of
fact by lower courts ONLY if the same are
unsupported by substantial evidence. Questions
of law, however, are always reviewable by higher
courts.
General Rule: Finality is attached o
findings of fact of some agencies when
these findings are supported by
substantial evidence and as long as there
is no grave abuse of discretion.
A question of fact is raised when the issue
involved is:
1. W/N a certain thing exists; or
2. W/N an event has taken place; or
3. Which version of events, among 2 or more,
are correct.
Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union: Employees
were dismissed for pilferage. Substantial
evidence rule is that findings of fact will not be
disturbed on appeal as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence.
Acting Commissioner v. Meralco: The SC is
bound by the finding of facts of the CTA, which
enjoys wide discretion in construing tax statutes.
The CTA is dedicated exclusively to the study and
consideration of tax problems and has necessarily
developed an expertise on the subject. The CTAs
determination of insulating oil as within the
meaning of insulators is thus accorded respect
Meralco v. NLRC: SC has ruled that the ground
for an employer's dismissal of an employee needs
to be established only by substantial evidence.
Lameyra v. Pangilinan: Held: No substantial
Evidence. SC was not convinced that the
certification of the personnel officer that
petitioner did not report for work from July 6,
1995 to August 6, 1995 constitutes such
substantial evidence in light of the petitioners
submission that said personnel officer precisely
prevented him from signing the log book. Under
these circumstances, petitioner should be given a
last full opportunity to prove his contention that
the termination of his services was illegal.
German Marine Agencies v. NLRC: Award of
sickness wages case. Whether or not petitioners
actually paid the balance of the sickness wages
to private respondent is a factual question. In the
absence of proof that the labor arbiter or the
NLRC had gravely abused their discretion, the
Court shall deem conclusive and cannot be
compelled to overturn this particular factual
finding
Velasquez v. Hernandez: Held: There was
substantial evidence. SC says that 20 sworn
statements of teachers are sufficient. Only 3
desisted but it is of no moment because
administrative actions cannot be made to depend
upon the will of every complainant who may, for
one reason or another, condone a detestable act.
CSC v. Cayobit: Person who said that 84% siya
sa CSC exam but in truth 40% lang! Quantum of
evidence required is only substantial in
administrative proceedings. Hence the masterlist,
being the primary record of the passers, is
sufficient evidence to dismiss the employee.
Office of the Ombudsman v.Santos: Case of
the principal who stole Yeros (galvanized iron
sheets) Since the decision of the Ombudsman
was supported by substantial evidence, the SC
sustained saying: We affirm all the other
findings of the Office of the Ombudsman. The
testimonial and documentary evidence contained
in the records constitutes substantial evidence to
prove the administrative liability of respondent,
Universal Camera v. NLRB: Dean says that this
is the leading case in substantial evidence.
Doctrine: The evidence supporting the agency's
conclusion must be substantial in consideration of
the record as a whole, even including the
evidence that is not consistent with the agency's
conclusion.
Notes: Sir says you must look at the evidence at
a whole, the CA (penned by Learned Hand )
ignored the examiners report.
D. Questions of Discretion
DISCRETIONARY MINISTERIAL
Power or right conferred
upon agencies to act
officially under certain
circumstances, according
to the dictates of their
own judgment and
conscience and not
controlled by the
judgment of others
A response to a duty
which has been
positively imposed by
law and its
performance required
at a time and in a
manner or upon
conditions specifically
designated. Not
dependent upon the
officers judgment or
discretion
Power to make a choice
among permissive action
or policies. Person or
persons exercising it
may choose which of
several courses of action
should be followed
Nothing is left to
discretion. It is a
simple definite duty
arising under
conditions admitted or
proved to exist

GRule: Courts have no power to substitute their
own judgments with that of the administrative
official. Because it is a recognition of the
expertise of the agency.
Except: When there is grave abuse of discretion.
Laguna Tayabas Bus v. PSC: Provisional
permit for buses case. Super Memory Jolter: This
is the case where Sir made the historic speech
about being PRECISE and CUTTING EDGE!
Doctrine: Just because there was a difference or
erroneous appreciation of the competing facts
presented before the officer, the court will not
substitute its judgment with that of the PSC. No
grave abuse of discretion is present.
The only time when it could be reversed (1) such
order is without reasonable support in evidence
(2) such was rendered in violation of the law
Manila Trading v. Zulueta: CIR ordered the ER
to just suspend an EE who was found guilty to
breach his duty. SC says: An employer cannot
legally be compelled to continue with the
employment of a person who admittedly was
guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his
employer, and whose continuance in the service
of the latter is patently inimical to his interests.
Hence, there was grave abuse of discretion in
this case.
Kapisanan v. Noriel and Federation of Free
Workers v. Noriel: Sir says these labor cases
should be studied in tandem. Basic doctrine:
When the 30% requirement in the certification
election has been met, then BLR is divested of
the discretion to decide WON a certification
election must be held. It is duty bound to grant
it. If 30% is NOT met, then BLR has the
discretion WON a certification election must be
held when the circumstances dictate.
PLDT v. NTC: NTC, as the governmental agency
charged with passing upon applications for
Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
in the field of telecommunications, is authorized
to determine what the specific operating and
technical requirements of "public convenience
and necessity" are in the field of
telecommunications.

VIII. ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION
The General Rule is that the manner in which
administrative decisions are enforced are to be
found in the enabling statute. Legislature does
this by providing mechanisms (i.e. contempt,
cease and desist) in the statute governing the
agency in order to put teeth into admin actions.

A. Res Judicata; Finality of Judgment
Requisites:1. Former final judgment; 2. Rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction; 3. Judgment
on the merits; 4. there being, between the first
and second action:[a) identity of parties,
b)subject matter and c) cause of action.
It only applies to judicial or quasi judicial
proceedings and not to the exercise of purely
administrative functions. Administrative
proceedings are non-litigous and summary in
nature.
Ipekdjian v. CTA: Board of Tax Appeals
decisions have judicial character if they were not
subsequently brought before the CFI or Court of
Tax Appeals. They were in a sense judicially
confirmed hence it attained the character of
finality.
Nasipit v. NLRC: The principle of res judicata
may not be invoked in labor relations
proceedings considering that Section 5, Rule XIII,
Book V of the IRR of the Labor Code provides
that such proceedings are "non-litigious and
summary in nature without regard to legal
technicalities obtaining in courts of law
Dulay v. Minister of Natural Resources: The
rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of
a matter once judicially determined by competent
authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-
judicial acts of public, executive or administrative
officers and boards acting within their
jurisdiction.
The decisions and orders of administrative
agencies rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial
authority, have, upon their finality, the force and
binding effect of a final judgment within the
purview of the doctrine of res judicata
Note: Res Judicata is a judicial doctrine hence it
only applies to quasi-judicial agencies.
Phil American General Insurance Company
v. CA: The cause of action in the marine protest
was to enforce the administrative liability of the
shipmaster/captain of M/V "Crazy Horse", its
officers and crew for the wreckage and sinking of
the subject vessel. The cause of action in the 2nd
is to enforce the civil liability the common carrier,
for its failure to unload the subject cargo within a
period of time considered unreasonably long by
the petitioner. No identity of CoA hence Res
judicata not present.

Manila Electric Co. V. Phil Consumers:
Requisites for res judicata to apply (1) There
must be a final judgment or order (2) Court
rendering it must have jurisdiction over the
parties and subject matter (3) Must be a
judgment on the merits (4) Identity of parties,
subject matter and causes of action.

B. Writ of Execution; Mandamus
GRule: Administrative agencies performing quasi-
judicial functions have the implied power to issue
writs of execution. When the law is silent,
presume that the agency has the power to
enforce its decisions emanating from its QJ
powers.
Exception: When the enabling law expressly
provides otherwise.
Apolega v. Hizon: As the law now stands, the
power to enforce awards under the Workmen's
Compensation Act is expressly vested in the
Commission or the duly deputized officials in the
Regional Offices of the Department of Labor
(previously it was the regular courts of justice
which could enforce awards)
Vda de Corpuz v. Commanding General Phil
Army: Petition for mandamus by petitioner was
granted because a final and executory award
entities petitioner to its enforcement according to
its letter. It is not susceptible of any change or
alteration by the officer charged with its
implementation as the latter's duty on the matter
constitutes only a ministerial act that does not
call for the exercise of discretion
Note: Sir says, what if the writ of execution is
ignored? Look at Vda. De Corpuz,you must file a
petition for mandamus
Ambrosio v. Salvador: The Court of First
Instance cannot issue a writ of injunction or
prohibition against the Court of Industrial
Relations because the CIR is equal in rank with
the Court of First Instance. Thus, the Injunction
was an Unwarranted Interference of the Writ of
Execution of the NLRC.
Merano v. Tutaan: Labor Arbiter refused to
enforce NLRC decision. His remedy against the
refusal or inaction the LA to enforce NLRC
awards/decision, is to call the NLRCs attention to
the alleged nonfeasance and NOT to file a
mandamus action in CFI which has no jurisdiction
to interfere with the execution of a final
judgment of the NLRC. (Again because NLRC is
equal with CFI)
GSIS v. CSC: The grant to a tribunal or agency
of adjudicatory power, or the authority to hear
and adjudge cases, should normally and logically
be deemed to include the grant of authority to
enforce or execute the judgments. (As sir says: if
it doesnt have the power to execute, inutile
agency)
Clavano v. HLURB: Case where the HLURB
modified its FINAL decision by ordering the
petitioners to also pay the registration fees.
Since, The decision has long become final and,
has also been completely satisfied. HLURB is thus
left with no other authority but to enforce the
dispositive part of its Decision which it can no
longer amend, modify or alter in a manner
affecting the merits of the judgment.



















Chapter 6
Judicial Review

General Rules
An administrative decision may be appealed to the
courts of justice only if the Constitution or the law
permits it or if the question to be reviewed is a
question of law.
However, jurisprudence is replete with cases where
the Supreme Court has applied the exceptions
rather than the rule.
In the case of the constitutional commission, i.e.,
the Commission on Elections, the Commission on
Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, it is
provided that any decision order or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days
from receipt of a copy thereof.
On the basis of Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and
Guideline implementing Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg. 129,
the Court of Appeals may review final decisions,
orders, awards or resolutions or regional trial
courts and of all quasi-judicial bodies, except the
Commission on Elections, the Commission on
Audit, the Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued
under the Labor Code of the Philippines and by
the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.
Other appeals are prescribed by special laws, such
as RA No. 1125, providing for appeal to the Court
of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the
Commissioner of Customs, or any provincial or city
board of assessment appeals.
Methods of review
The methods of judicial review are prescribed by
the Constitution, statutes or the Rules of the
Court. These methods may be specific or general.
It is provided in RA No. 5434 that an appeal from a
final award, order or decisions of the Patent Office
shall be taken by filing with said body and with the
Court of Appeals a notice of appeal within 15 days
from notice of such award, order or ruling, copies
being served on all interested parties.
The Administrative Code generally provides that an
appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected
by filing with the agency within 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 Supreme Court instructed certain universally
accepted axioms governing judicial review through
the extraordinary actions of certiorari or
prohibition of determinations of administrative
officers or agencies:
First, before said actions may be entertained, it
must be shown that all the administrative
remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been
exhausted; and,
Second, that the administrative decision may
properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear
showing that the administrative official or tribunal
has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with a grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort

There are two doctrines that must be considered
in connection with the judicial review of
administrative decisions:(1) doctrine of primary
jurisdiction or prior resort; and (2) the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply
calls for the determination of administrative
questions, which ordinarily questions of fact,
by administrative agencies rather courts of
justice.

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 the court

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, an administrative
decision must first be appealed to the
administrative superior up to the highest level
before it may be elevated to a court of justice
for review.
A. Reasons

(1) The administrative superiors, if given the
opportunity, can correct the errors
committed by their subordinates;

(2) Courts should as much as possible refrain
from disturbing the findings of
administrative bodies in deference to the
doctrine of separation of powers;

(3) On practical grounds, it is best that the
courts should not be saddled with the
review of administrative cases;

(4) Judicial review of administrative cases is
usually effected through the special civil
actions of certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition, which are available only if there
is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy.

B. Exceptions

(1) When the question raised is purely legal
(question of law is involved);

(2) When the administrative body is estoppel;

(3) When the act complained of is patently
illegal;

(4) When there is urgent need for judicial
intervention;

(5) When the claim involved is small;

(6) When irreparable damage will be suffered;

(7) When there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy;

(8) When strong public interest is involved;

(9) When the subject of the controversy is
private land;

(10) In quo warranto proceedings

C. Appeal to the President

Of special interest is the question of whether or not
a decision of the cabinet member has to be
appealed first to the President before it may be
brought to a court of justice. Jurisprudence on
this matter is rather indecisive.
In the early case of demaisip vs. Court of Appeals,
the Court held that appeal to the President was not
necessary because the Cabinet member was after
all his alter ego and, under the doctrine of qualified
political agency, the acts of the secretary were the
acts of the President.
This view was abandoned in Calo vs. Fuertes,
where it was held that appeal to the President was
the final step in the administrative process and
therefore a condition precedent to appeal to the
courts.

In Bartulata vs. Peralta, however, the court
reinstated the Demaisip doctrine, again on the
basis of alter ego justification.

Tan vs. Director of Forestry, thereafter revived Calo
andagain required appeal to the President as a
prerequisite to an appeal of a Cabinet member's
decision to the courts of Justice.

D. Effect of Non-compliance

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies
does not affect the jurisdiction of the court and
merely results in the lack of a cause of action
which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss.
If this ground to dismiss the court action is not
properly or reasonably invoked, the court may
proceed to hear the case.
As previously noted, the court has the discretion to
require the observance of the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies and may, if
it sees fit, dispense with it and proceed with the
disposition of the case.

Questions Reviewable

Two kinds of questions are reviewable by the
courts of justice, to wit: the question of fact and
the question of law.

On the question of fact, review of the administrative
decision lies in the discretion of the legislature,
which may or may not permit it as it sees fit.

But when it comes to the question of law, the
administrative decision may be appealed to the
courts of justice independently of legislative
permission or even against legislative prohibition.
The reason is that the judiciary cannot be deprived
of its inherent power to review all decisions on
questions of law, whether made initially by lower
courts and more so by an administrative body.


A. Questions of fact

Even if allowed to review administrative decisions
on questions of fact, courts of justice generally
defer to such decisions and will decline to disturb
them except only where there is a clear showing of
arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court ruled in Osias Academy vs.
DOLE that findings of administrative agencies
which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are
generally accorded not only respect but
finality.

B. Questions of Law

Administrative bodies may be allowed to resolve
questions of law in the exercise of their quasi-
judicial function as an incident of their primary
power of regulation.


However as a rule, it is only the judicial tribunal
that can interpret and decide the question of
law with finality.