REVIEWE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Midterm
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Dean Roscoe Pound as "That branch of modern law under
which the executive department of the government acting in a
quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the
conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-
being of the community, as under laws regulating public
corporations, business affected with public interest, professions,
trades and callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of
the public health and safety and the promotion of the public
convenience and advantage."
Definition of Terms:
Section 2. General Terms Defined. - Unless the specific words
of the text, or the context as a whole, or a particular statute, shall
require a different meaning:
(1) Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to
the corporate governmental entity through which the functions
of government are exercised throughout the Philippines,
including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the
various arms through which political authority is made effective
in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous
regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions
or other forms of local government.
(2) National Government refers to the entire machinery of the
central government, as distinguished from the different forms of
local governments.
(3) Local Government refers to the political subdivisions
established by or in accordance with the Constitution.
(4) Agency of the Government refers to any of the various units
of the Government, including a department, bureau, office,
instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled
corporations, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.
(5) National Agency refers to a unit of the National
Government.
(6) Local Agency refers to a local government or a distinct unit
therein.
(7) Department refers to an executive department created by
law. For purposes of Book IV, this shall include any
instrumentality, as herein defined, having or assigned the rank
of a department, regardless of its name or designation.
(8) Bureau refers to any principal subdivision or unit of any
department. For purposes of Book IV, this shall include any
principal subdivision or unit of any instrumentality given or
assigned the rank of a bureau, regardless of actual name or
designation, as in the case of department-wide regional offices.
(9) Office refers, within the framework of governmental
organization, to any major functional unit of a department or
bureau including regional offices. It may also refer to any
position held or occupied by individual persons, whose functions
are defined by law or regulation.
(10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National
Government, not integrated within the department framework
vested within special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed
with some if not all corporate powers, administering special
funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a
charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered
institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations.
1|Page
(11) Regulatory agency refers to any agency expressly vested
with jurisdiction to regulate, administer or adjudicate matters
affecting substantial rights and interests of private persons, the
principal powers of which are exercised by a collective body,
such as a commission, board or council.
(12) Chartered institution refers to any agency organized or
operating under a special charter, and vested by law with
functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives.
This term includes the state universities and colleges and the
monetary authority of the State.
(13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to
any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation,
vested with functions relating to public needs whether
governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the
Government directly or through its instrumentalities either
wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations,
to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) per cent of its capital stock:
Provided, That government-owned or controlled corporations
may be further categorized by the Department of the Budget, the
Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit for
purposes of the exercise and discharge of their respective
powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such
corporations.
(14) "Officer" as distinguished from "clerk" or "employee",
refers to a person whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual
nature, involves the exercise of discretion in the performance of
the functions of the government. When used with reference to a
person having authority to do a particular act or perform a
particular function in the exercise of governmental power,
"officer" includes any government employee, agent or body
having authority to do the act or exercise that function.
(15) "Employee", when used with reference to a person in the
public service, includes any person in the service of the
government or any of its agencies, divisions, subdivisions or
instrumentalities.
Cases
1. Mecano vs COA
The question of whether a particular law has been repealed or
not by a subsequent law is a matter of legislative intent. The
lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by incorporating therein
a repealing provision which expressly and specifically cites the
particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are intended to
be repealed. A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing
clause, that a particular and specific law, identified by its number
or title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied
repeals
The question that should be asked is: What is the nature of
this repealing clause?
It is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to
identify or designate the act or acts that are intended to be
repealed. Rather, it is an example of a general repealing
provision. It is a clause which predicates the intended repeal
under the condition that substantial conflict must be found in
existing and prior acts. This latter situation falls under the
category of an implied repeal.
There are two categories of repeal by implication.
1. Where provisions in the two acts on the same subject
matter are in an irreconcilable conflict, the later act to
the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal
of the earlier one.
 2. If the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier
one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will
operate to repeal the earlier law.
Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does
not cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the
old Code. There are several matters treated in the old Code
which are not found in the new Code, such as the provisions on
notaries public, the leave law, the public bonding law, military
reservations, claims for sickness benefits under Section 699,
and still others.
According to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of Justice,
what appears clear is the intent to cover only those aspects of
government that pertain to administration, organization and
procedure, understandably because of the many changes that
transpired in the government structure since the enactment of
the RAC decades of years ago.
2. Leveriza vs IAC
respondent CAA avers that the CAA Administrator has the
authority to lease real property belonging to the RP under its
administration even without the approval of the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications, which authority is
expressly vested in it by law, more particularly Section 32 (24)
of Republic Act 776.
3. LDB vs ALDB Employees
An “instrumentality” is anything used as a means or agency.
Thus, the terms governmental “agency” or “instrumentality” are
synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by
which a government acts, or by which a certain government act
or function is performed. The word “instrumentality,” with respect
to a state, contemplates an authority to which the state
delegates governmental power for the performance of a state
function. Re: Decision of voluntary arbiter
4. Iron and Steel Authority vs CA
ISA is a non-incorporated agency or instrumentality of the
Republic, its powers, duties, functions, assets and liabilities are
properly regarded as folded back into GRP and hence assumed
once again by the Republic, no special statutory provision
having been shown to have mandated succession thereto by
some other entity or agency of the Republic.
Re: ISA’s existence expired, RP validly substituted ISA in the
suit
II. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
Creation, Establishment, and Abolition of Administrative
Agencies
The creation of public offices is primarily a legislative function.
>>> In so far as the legislative power in this respect is not
restricted by constitutional provisions, it is supreme, and the
legislature may decide for itself what offices are suitable,
necessary, or convenient.
All offices created by the legislature are wholly within the power
of that body, and it may prescribe the mode of filling the office
and the powers and duties of the office holders, and, if it sees
fit, abolish the office.
Cases
1. Crisostomo vs CA
When the purpose of the law is to abolish an office or
organization and to replace it with another one, the lawmaking
authority says so.
2|Page
2. Viola vs. Alunan
The creation of additional positions is authorized by Sec. 493
of the LGC which in fact requires – and not merely authorizes
– the board of directors to “create such other positions as it may
deem necessary for the management of the chapter”. To begin
with, the creation of these positions was actually made in the
Constitution and By-laws of the Liga ng mga barangay which
was adopted by the First Barangay National Assembly.
There is no undue delegation of power by Congress in this
case. SC decisions have upheld the validity of reorganization
statutes authorizing the President of the Philippines to create,
abolish, or merge offices in the executive management.
3. Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission
Article VII, section 17: The Executive is given much leeway in
ensuring that our laws are faithfully executed. The powers of the
President are not limited to those specific powers under the
Constitution. One of the recognized powers of the President
granted pursuant to this constitutionally-mandated duty is the
power to create ad hoc committees. This flows from the obvious
need to ascertain facts and determine if laws have been faithfully
executed. The purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating bodies
to exist is to allow an inquiry into matters which the President is
entitled to know so that he can be properly advised and guided
in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and
enforcement of the laws of the land.
PD 1416: functus oficio, but why still used in Larin v. Executive
Secretary case? Held: Unconstitutional due to violation of equal
protection clause
Reorganization of Administrative Agencies
Reorganization: process of restructuring the bureaucracy’s
organizational and functional set-up, to make it more viable in
terms of the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and make it
more responsive to the needs of its public clientele as authorized
by law.
– means used by the legislature to reorganize or abolish
offices, which it may do so by law directly or indirectly by
authorizing an executive department or agency to reorganize
the office
Basis of the President’s Power to Reorganize
The exercise of the power of reorganization or abolition of offices
must be made in good faith, otherwise the same may be
declared invalid.
Evidence of bad faith (RA 6656):
1) Where there is a significant increase in the number of
positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency
concerned;
2) Where an office is abolished and another performing
substantially the same functions us created;
3) Where incumbents were replaced by those less qualified in
terms of status of appointment, performance and merit;
4) Where there is a classification of offices in the department or
agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform
substantially the same functions as the original offices; and
5) Where the removal violates the order of separation.
Section 31, Book III, Chapter 10 of the 1987 Administrative
Code
Sec. 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his
Office. – The President, subject to the policy in the Executive
Order and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency,
shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative
structure of the Office of the President.
Power of other Agencies to Re-organize
Section 62 of RA 7645
Sec. 62. Unauthorized organizational changes. – Unless
otherwise created by law or directed by the President of the
Philippines, no organizational unit or changes in key positions in
any department or agency shall be authorized in their respective
organizational structures and be funded from appropriations by
this Act.
>>> The President is authorized to effect organizational
changes, including the creation of offices in the department or
agency concerned.
Cases
1. Anak Mindanao Party List vs Exec. Sec.
The Administrative Code of 1987 categorizes administrative
relationships into (1) supervision and control, (2) administrative
supervision, and (3) attachment.
SEC. 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize
his Office. The President, subject to the policy in the Executive
Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and
efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize the
administrative structure of the Office of the President. For this
purpose, he may take any of the following actions:
(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the
President Proper, including the immediate Offices, the
Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System and the
Common Staff Support System, by abolishing, consolidating, or
merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to
another;
(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President
to any other Department or Agency as well as transfer functions
to the Office of the President from other Departments and
Agencies; and
(3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President
to any other department or agency as well as transfer agencies
to the Office of the President from other departments or
agencies.
Re: IPRA and PCUP attachment to Dept. of Land Reform
1. Bagaoisan vs NTA
The president has the power to reorganize an office to achieve
simplicity, economy and efficiency as provided under EO 292
Sec. 31 and Sec. 48 of RA 7645 which provides that activities of
executive agencies may be scaled down if it is no longer
essential for the delivery of public service.
Evidence of Bad Faith RA 6656 not present
2. Kapisanan ng mga Kawani ng ERB vs Barin
In tandem with the restructuring of the industry is the
establishment of a strong and purely independent regulatory
body. Thus, the law created the ERC in place of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB).
To achieve its aforestated goal, the law has reconfigured the
organization of the regulatory body.
There is no question in our minds that, because of the expansion
of the ERCs functions and concerns, there was a valid abolition
of the ERB. Thus, there is no merit to KERBs allegation that
there is an impairment of the security of tenure of the ERBs
employees.
3. National Land Titles and Deed vs CSC
EO 649 reorganized the LRC—a valid reorganization measure
All positions in the LRC were deemed non-existent
Abolition of a position doesn’t involve removal since removal
implies that the post subsists and that one is merely separated
therefrom
After abolition, there is in law no occupant and no tenure to
speak of.
3|Page
It was ruled in this case that the respondent, not a member of
the Bar, cannot be restituted to her former position
4. Eugenio vs Civil Service Commission
The controlling fact is that the CESB was created in PD No. 1
on September 1, 1974. It cannot be disputed, therefore, that as
the CESB was created by law, it can only be abolished by the
legislature. This follows an unbroken stream of rulings that the
creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative
function
In the petition at bench, the legislature has not enacted any law
authorizing the abolition of the CESB. On the contrary, in all the
General Appropriations Acts from 1975 to 1993, the legislature
has set aside funds for the operation of CESB.
Respondent Commission, however, invokes Section 17,
Chapter 3, Subtitle A. Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code
of 1987 as the source of its power to abolish the CESB.
But as well pointed out by petitioner and the Solicitor General,
Section 17 must be read together with Section 16 of the said
Code which enumerates the offices under the respondent
Commission.
As read together, the inescapable conclusion is that respondent
Commission’s power to reorganize is limited to offices under its
control as enumerated in Section 16.
Purposes for Creating Administrative Agencies
1) To unclog court dockets. To relieve courts of the burden of
resolving all controversies, specialized agencies have been
created to hear and decide particular disputes.
2) To meet the growing complexities of modern society. As
problems of modern society multiply, which can hardly be met
by the legislature, administrative agencies are established to
promptly cope up with such problems.
3) To help in the regulation of ramified activities of a
developing country.
4) To entrust to specialized agencies in specified fields with
their special knowledge, experience, and capability the task of
dealing with problems thereof as they have the experience,
expertise and power of dispatch to provide solutions thereto.
Common Types of Administrative Agencies
1) Agencies created to function in situations wherein the
government is offering some gratuity, grant, or special
privileges. (e.g. Philippine Veterans Board, Board on Pensions
for Veterans, Philippine Veterans Administration, GSIS, SSS)
2) Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is seeking to carry on certain governmental
functions. (e.g. Bureau of Immigration, BIR, Board of Special
Inquiry and Board of Commissioners, CSC, Central Bank)
3) Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is performing some business service for the public.
(e.g. Bureau of Posts, Postal Savings Bank, Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerages Authority, Philippine National
Railways, Civil Aeronautics Administration)
4) Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is seeking to regulate business affected with public
interest. (e.g. Fiber Inspection Board, Philippines Patent Office,
Office of the Insurance Commissioner
5) Agencies set up to function in situations where the
government is seeking under police power to regulate private
business and individuals. (e.g. SEC, Board of Food Inspectors,
Board of Review of Motion Pictures, PRC)
6) Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is seeking to adjust individual controversies
because of some strong social policy involved. (e.g. NLRC,
Court of Agrarian Relations, Regional Offices of the Ministry of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards, Women and Minors Bureau)
7) Agencies set up to function in situations where the
government is seeking to conduct investigations and gather
evidence for information, recommendation or prosecution of
crimes. (e.g. CHR, NBI, Prosecutor’s Office)
III. POWER OF ADMINISTRATIVEAGENCIES
Control vs Supervision
Quasi-judicial vs Quasi-legislative
Cases
1. Makati Stock Exchange vs SEC
Regulation vs prohibition
2. Kilusang Bayan vs Dominguez
The power to summarily disband the board of directors may not
be inferred from any of the foregoing as both P.D. No. 175 and
the by-laws of the KBMBPM explicitly mandate the manner by
which directors and officers are to be removed. The Secretary
should have known better than to disregard these procedures
and rely on a mere petition by the general membership of the
KBMBPM and an on-going audit by Department of Agriculture
auditors in exercising a power which he does not have,
expressly or impliedly. We cannot concede to the proposition of
the Office of the Solicitor General that the Secretary’s power
under paragraph (d), Section 8 of P.D. No. 175 above quoted to
suspend the operation or cancel the registration of any
cooperative includes the “milder authority of suspending officers
and calling for the election of new officers.” Firstly, neither
suspension nor cancellation includes the take-over and ouster
of incumbent directors and officers, otherwise the law itself
would have expressly so stated. Secondly, even granting that
the law intended such as postulated, there is the requirement of
a hearing. None was conducted.
3. Sen. Jaworkski vs PAGCOR
While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter into
operator’s and/or management contracts, it is not allowed under
the same charter to relinquish or share its franchise, much less
grant a veritable franchise to another entity such as SAGE.
PAGCOR cannot delegate its power in view of the legal principle
of delegata potestas delegare non potest, inasmuch as there is
nothing in the charter to show that it has been expressly
authorized to do so.
4. Radio Communications of the Phil vs NTC
NTC has no jurisdiction to impose a fine. Under Section 21 of C.
A. 146, as amended, the Commission was empowered to
impose an administrative fine in cases of violation of or failure
by a public service to comply with the terms and conditions of
any certificate or any orders, decisions or regulations of the
Commission. Petitioner operated under a legislative franchise,
so there were no terms nor conditions of any certificate issued
by the Commission to violate. Neither was there any order,
decision or regulation from the Commission applicable to
petitioner that the latter had allegedly violated, disobeyed, defied
or disregarded.
5. Matienzo vs. Abellera
Reading of Sec. 1 PD 101, shows a grant of powers to the
respondent Board to issue provisional permits as a step towards
the legalization of colorum taxicab operations without the
4|Page
alleged time limitation. There is nothing in Section 4, cited by the
petitioners, to suggest the expiration of such powers six (6)
months after promulgation of the Decree. Rather, it merely
provides for the withdrawal of the State’s waiver of its right to
punish said colorum operators for their illegal acts. In other
words, the cited section declares when the period of moratorium
suspending the relentless drive to eliminate illegal operators
shall end. Clearly, there is no impediment to the Board’s
exercise of jurisdiction under its broad powers under the Public
Service Act to issue certificates of public convenience to achieve
the avowed purpose of PD 101 (Sec. 16a, Public Service Act,
Nov. 7, 1936).
It is a settled principle of law that in determining whether a board
or commission has a certain power, the authority given should
be liberally construed in the light of the purposes for which it was
created, and that which is incidentally necessary to a full
implementation of the legislative intent should be upheld as
germane to the law. Necessarily, too, where the end is required,
the appropriate means are deemed given.
6. LLDA vs CA
The LLDA has express powers as a regulatory and quasi-judicial
body in respect to pollution cases with authority to issue a
“cease and desist order” and on matters affecting the
construction of illegal fishpens, fish cages and other aqua-
culture structures in Laguna de Bay.
Quasi-legislative Power – authority delegated by the law-
making body to the administrative body to adopt rules and
regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a law and
implement legislative policy.
Distinctions between Quasi-legislative power and legislative
power
LEGISLATIVE power involves the discretion to determine what
the law shall be. QUASI-legislative power only involves the
discretion to determine how the law shall be enforced.
LEGISLATIVE power CANNOT be delegated. QUASI-legislative
power CAN be delegated.
Tests of Delegation (applies to the power to promulgate
administrative regulations)
COMPLETENESS test – law must be complete in all its terms
and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that when it
reaches the delegate, it will have nothing to do but to enforce it.
SUFFICIENT STANDARD test – law must offer a sufficient
standard to specify the limits of the delegate’s authority,
announce the legislative policy and specify the conditions under
which it is to be implemented.
EXCEPTIONS to NON-delegation of legislative powers:
President, SC, Admin Bodies (by law)
Cases
1. US vs Barrias
The Commissioner cannot impose a different range of penalty
different from that specified by Congress. If the Collector is
allowed to do so, then in effect, it is as if he is being delegated
the power to legislate penalties. One of the settled maxims in
constitutional law is, that the power conferred upon the
legislature to make laws cannot be delegated by that
department to anybody or authority. Where the sovereign power
of the State has located the authority, there it must remain; only
by the constitutional agency alone the laws must be made until
the constitution itself is changed. The power to whose judgment,
wisdom, and patriotism this high prerogative has been entrusted
cannot relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing other
agencies upon which the power shall be developed, nor can its
substitutes the judgment, wisdom, and patriotism and of any
other body for those to which alone the people have seen fit to
confide this sovereign trust.
This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such a
delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be
performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own
judgment acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and
not through the intervening mind of another. The Collector
cannot exercise a power exclusively lodged in Congress.
Hence, Barrias should be penalized in accordance to the penalty
being imposed by Act No. 1136. In this case, the Supreme Court
determined that the proper fine is $25.00.
2. People vs Vera
The challenged section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which
reads as follows: "This Act shall apply only in those provinces in
which the respective provincial boards have provided for the
salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now
provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be
appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the
direction of the Probation Office."
The provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine
for themselves, whether the Probation Law shall apply to their
provinces or not at all. The applicability and application of the
Probation Act are entirely placed in the hands of the provincial
boards. If the provincial board does not wish to have the Act
applied in its province, all that it has to do is to decline to
appropriate the needed amount for the salary of a probation
officer.
3. Eastern Shipping Lines vs POEA
The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers
in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies.
With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant
peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and
more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the
authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the
statute. This is called the "power of subordinate legislation."
4. Rabor vs CSC
Our conclusion is that the doctrine of Cena should be and is
hereby modified to this extent: that Civil Service Memorandum
Circular No. 27, Series of 1990, more specifically paragraph (1)
thereof, is hereby declared valid and effective. Section 11 (b) of
P.D. No. 1146 must, accordingly, be read together with
Memorandum Circular No. 27. We reiterate, however, the
holding in Cena that the head of the government agency
concerned is vested with discretionary authority to allow or
disallow extension of the service of an official or employee who
has reached sixty-five (65) years of age without completing
fifteen (15) years of government service; this discretion is,
nevertheless, to be exercised conformably with the provisions of
Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1990.
5. In re: Entitlement to Hazard Pay of SC Medical and Dental
Clinic Employees
RR must not be in contravention of the Law it supplements
Kinds of Administrative Laws
(1) Statutes setting up administrative authorities
(2) Rules, regulations or orders of such administrative
authorities promulgated pursuant to the purposes for which they
were created
(3) Determinations, decisions and orders of such administrative
authorities made in the settlement of controversies arising in
their particular fields
5|Page
(4) Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation,
operation and effect of determinations and regulations of such
administrative authorities.
Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations
(1) Supplementary or detailed legislation
They are rules and regulations that "fix the details" in the
execution and enforcement of a policy set out in the law.
Example is the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
Code.
(2) Interpretative legislation
They are rules and regulations construing or interpreting the
provisions of a statute to be enforced and they are binding on all
concerned until they are changed, such as BIR Circulars and CB
Circulars. In GONZALEZ vs. LAND BANK 1990, they have the
effect of law and are entitled to great respect. They have in their
favor the presumption of legality. The erroneous application of
the law by public officers does not bar a subsequent correct
application of the law (MANILA JOCKEY CLUB vs. CA 1998).
(3) Contingent legislation
They are rules and regulations made by an administrative
authority on the existence of certain facts or things upon which
the enforcement of the law depends. (CRUZ vs. YOUNGBERG
1931)
Cases
1. ABAKADA Guro Party List vs Purisima
Any post-enactment congressional measure such as this should
be limited to scrutiny and investigation. In particular,
congressional oversight must be confined to the following: (1)
scrutiny based primarily on Congress' power of appropriation
and the budget hearings conducted in connection with it, its
power to ask heads of departments to appear before and be
heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their
departments and its power of confirmation and (2) Investigation
and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the
power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of
powers guaranteed by the Constitution. Legislative vetoes fall in
this class.
2. Gutierrez vs DBM
As will be noted from the first sentence above, all allowances
were deemed integrated into the standardized salary rates
except the following:
(1) representation and transportation allowances;
(2) clothing and laundry allowances;
(3) subsistence allowances of marine officers and crew on board
government vessels;
(4) subsistence allowances of hospital personnel;
(5) hazard pay;
(6) allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; &
(7) such other additional compensation not otherwise specified
in Section 12 as may be determined by the DBM.
3. BPI Leasing vs CA and CIR
The principle is well entrenched that statutes, including
administrative rules and regulations, operate prospectively only,
unless the legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by
express terms or by necessary implication. In the present case,
there is no indication that the revenue regulation may operate
retroactively. Furthermore, there is an express provision stating
that it shall take effect on January 1, 1987, and that it shall be
applicable to all leases written on or after the said date. Being
clear on its prospective application, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without further interpretation. Thus, BLC is
not in a position to invoke the provisions of Revenue Regulation
19-86 for lease rentals it received prior to January 1, 1987.
4. BOT vs Velasco
step increment, preventive suspension
Requisites of a Valid ARR
1. Dagan vs Phil Racing Commission
Philracom’s directive. Philracom’s authority is drawn from P.D.
No. 420. The delegation made in the presidential decree is valid.
Philracom did not exceed its authority. And the issuances are
fair and reasonable.in every case of permissible delegation,
there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is
valid only if the law is complete in itself and fixes a standard to
which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions. A sufficient standard is one which indicates the
circumstances under which the legislative command is to be
effected. Philracom was created for the purpose of carrying out
the declared policy in Section 1 of said law. Furthermore,
Philracom was granted exclusive jurisdiction and control over
every aspect of the conduct of horse racing, including the
framing and scheduling of races, the construction and safety of
race tracks, and the security of racing. P.D. No. 420 is already
complete in itself.
2. Smart vs NTC
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the
administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory
function. Thus, in cases involving specialized disputes, the
practice has been to refer the same to an administrative agency
of special competence pursuant to the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction.
However, where what is assailed is the validity or
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the
administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative
function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the
same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules
issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the
constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
3. Conte vs COA
The said financial assistance partakes of the nature of a
retirement benefit that has the effect of modifying existing
retirement laws particularly R.A. No. 660. It is simply beyond
dispute that the SSS had no authority to maintain and implement
such retirement plan and in the guise of rule-making, legislate or
amend laws or worse, render them nugatory. Hence, SSS
Resolution No. 56 is hereby illegal, void and no effect.
Penal Rules and Regulation
1. People vs Santos
Act No. 4003, as stated, contains no provisions similar to those
contained in the above quoted conditional clause of section 28
of Administrative Order No. 2, the conditional clause in question
supplies a defect of the law, extending it. This is equivalent to
legislating on the matter, a power which has not been and
cannot be delegated to him, it being exclusively reserved to the
then Philippine Legislature by the Jones Law, and now to the
National Assembly by the Constitution of the Philippines. Such
act constitutes not only an excess of the regulatory power
conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, but
also an exercise of a legislative power which he does not have,
and therefore said conditional clause is null and void and without
effect.re: must be in accordance with law
2. People vs Que Po Lay
Circular and regulations of the Central Bank in question
prescribing a penalty for its violation should be published before
6|Page
becoming effective. This is based on the theory that before the
public is bound by its contents especially its penal provisions, a
law, regulation or circular must first be published for the people
to be officially and specifically informed of such contents
including its penalties. Re:publication
3. People vs Maceren
Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by
a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions
of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into
effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the
law itself cannot be extended.
Re: electro fishing
Force and Effect of Administrative Rules and Regulations
1. Peralta vs CSC
Administrative construction, is not necessarily binding upon the
courts. Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or
set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, or
abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of
a legislative enactment. When an administrative or executive
agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it
merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative
interpretation of the law is at best advisory, for it is the courts
that finally determine what the law means.
Re: Orthodox view and modern view, operative fact
2. Javellana vs DILG
The Local Government Code and DLG memorandum circular
No.90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to
avoid conflicts of interest between the discharges of their public
duties and the private practice of their profession.
Requirements of Notice and Hearing or Publication
1. CIR vs CA (Fortune)
A legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation,
designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the
details thereof. In the same way that laws must have the benefit
of public hearing, it is generally required that before a legislative
rule is adopted there must be hearing. In this connection, the
Administrative Code of 1987 provides:
(1) Public Participation. - If not otherwise required by
law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate
notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the
opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be
valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before
the first hearing thereon.
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases
shall be observed.
In addition such rule must be published. On the other hand,
interpretative rules are designed to provide guidelines to the law
which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing."
2. CIR vs Hypermix
Section 3. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the University
of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every
rule adopted by it. 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 bases of any sanction against any
party of persons.
Section 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise required by
law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate
notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the
opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless
the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of
general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing
thereon.
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be
observed.
Construction of Administrative Rules and Regulations
1. Victorias Milling Co vs SSC
Therefore, Circular No. 22 purports merely to advise employers-
members of the System of what, in the light of the amendment
of the law, they should include in determining the monthly
compensation of their employees upon which the social security
contributions should be based, and that such circular did not
require presidential approval and publication in the Official
Gazette for its effectivity. The Resolution appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant.
2. NFA vs MASADA Security Agency
Expresio unius est exclusio alterius. Where a statute, by its
terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by
interpretation or construction, be extended to others.[27] Since
the increase in wage referred to in Section 6 pertains to the
statutory minimum wage as defined herein, principals in service
contracts cannot be made to pay the corresponding wage
increase in the overtime pay, night shift differential, holiday and
rest day pay, premium pay and other benefits granted to
workers. While basis of said remuneration and benefits is the
statutory minimum wage, the law cannot be unduly expanded as
to include those not stated in the subject provision.
The settled rule in statutory construction is that if the statute is
clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without interpretation. This plain meaning
rule or verba legis derived from the maxim index animi sermo
est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid
presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a
statute correctly express its intention or will and preclude the
court from construing it differently. The legislature is presumed
to know the meaning of the words, to have used words
advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by use of such words
as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or
from the words of a statute there should be no departure.[28]
1. SGMC Realty Corp vs OP
If there are special laws governing particular cases which
provide for a shorter or longer reglementary period, the same
shall prevail over the thirty-day period provided for in the
administrative order. This is in line with the rule in statutory
construction that an administrative rule or regulation, in order to
be valid, must not contradict but conform to the provisions of the
enabling law.
PROSPECTIVE OR RETROACTIVE APPLICATION
1. CIR vs Reyes
Section 228 of the Tax Code and RR 12-99 were mandatory and
unequivocal in their requirement. The assessment notice and
the demand letter should have stated the facts and the law on
which they were based; otherwise, they were deemed void.6
The appellate court held that while administrative agencies, like
the BIR, were not bound by procedural requirements, they were
still required by law and equity to observe substantive due
process. The reason behind this requirement, said the CA, was
to ensure that taxpayers would be duly apprised of — and could
effectively protest — the basis of tax assessments against
them.7 Since the assessment and the demand were void, the
7|Page
proceedings emanating from them were likewise void, and any
order emanating from them could never attain finality
2. Dadulo vs CA
Findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive
when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due
respect and weight especially when they are affirmed by the
Court of Appeals. It is only when there is grave abuse of
discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings
may aptly be made.17 In reviewing administrative decisions, it
is beyond the province of this Court to weigh the conflicting
evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise
substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency with
respect to the sufficiency of evidence.18 It is not the function of
this Court to analyze and weigh the parties’ evidence all over
again except when there is serious ground to believe that a
possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result. Our task in
an appeal by petition for review on certiorari is limited, as a
jurisdictional matter, to reviewing errors of law that might have
been committed by the Court of Appeals.
AMENDMENT OF REPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
AND REGULATIONS
1. RP vs ExpressTel
The absence of publication, coupled with the certification by the
Commissioner of the NTC stating that the NTC was still
governed by the 1978 Rules, clearly indicate that the 1993
Revised Rules have not taken effect at the time of the grant of
the provisional authority to Bayantel. The fact that the 1993
Revised Rules were filed with the UP Law Center on February
3, 1993 is of no moment. There is nothing in the Administrative
Code of 1987 which implies that the filing of the rules with the
UP Law Center is the operative act that gives the rules force and
effect. Book VII, Chapter 2, Section 3 thereof merely states:
Filing. --- (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the
Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule
adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code
which are not filed within three (3) months from the date shall
not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party or
persons.
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent
functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section
under pain or disciplinary action.
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing
agency and shall be open to public inspection.
The National Administrative Register is merely a bulletin of
codified rules and it is furnished only to the Office of the
President, Congress, all appellate courts, the National Library,
other public offices or agencies as the Congress may select, and
to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and
mailing or distribution cost.
Re: Publication is a MUST
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE AND INTERPRETATION
DISTINGUISHED
KINDS OF EXECUTIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW
1. By executive or admin to officer directly called to
implement the law
2. Construction by Sec. of Justice
3. In adversary proceeding (ruling in exercise of quasi-
judicial power)
1.San Miguel Corp vs Inciong
While doubt may have been created by the prior Rules and
Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree 851 which
defines basic salary to include all remunerations or earnings
paid by an employer to an employee, this cloud is dissipated in
the later and more controlling Supplementary Rules and
Regulations which categorically, exclude from the definition of
basic salary earnings and other remunerations paid by employer
to an employee. A cursory perusal of the two sets of Rules
indicates that what has hitherto been the subject of a broad
inclusion is now a subject of broad exclusion. The
Supplementary rules and Regulations cure the seeming
tendency of the former rules to include all remunerations and
earnings within the definition of basic salary.
WEIGHT ACCORDED TO CONTEMPORANEOUS
CONSTRUCTION
1. Asturias Sugar Central vs Commissioner of
Customs
Only where the court of last resort has not previously interpreted
the statute is the rule applicable that courts will give
consideration to construction by administrative or executive
departments of the state.41awphîl.nèt
The formal or informal interpretation or practical construction of
an ambiguous or uncertain statute or law by the executive
department or other agency charged with its administration or
enforcement is entitled to consideration and the highest respect
from the courts, and must be accorded appropriate weight in
determining the meaning of the law, especially when the
construction or interpretation is long continued and uniform or is
contemporaneous with the first workings of the statute, or when
the enactment of the statute was suggested by such agency.
WHEN CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION
DISREGARDED
No ambiguity, erroneous, Court gave a different interpretation
ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION CREATES NO RIGHT;
EXCEPTION
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
The administrative body is normally granted the authority to
promulgate its rules of procedure over proceedings which
partake of the character of judicial proceedings, provided they
do not increase, diminish or modify substantive rights, and
subject to disapproval by the Supreme Court (SEC. 5[5]
ARTICLE VIII). The requisites of procedural due process must
be complied with.
Requisites of administrative due process
(1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right of the
party to present his own case and submit evidence in
support thereof; (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
evidence adduced at the hearing, or at least contained
in the record and disclosed to the parties; (6) The
Board or its judges must act on its or their independent
consideration of the law and the facts of the case, and
not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving
at a decision; (7) The decision must be rendered in
such a manner that the parties to the controversy can
know the various issues involved and the reasons for
the decision rendered. (ANG TIBAY vs. CIR 1940)
CASES
1. Carino vs CHR
The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o
follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace
or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and
8|Page
accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; examination; the
taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;
In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise
of judicial authority. To determine finally. Synonymous with
adjudge in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means: "To pass
on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or
condemn. . . . Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the
entry of a judgment
2. Megaworld vs DSM
No abuse of discretion was established by Megaworld. On
the contrary, what is apparent is Megaworld’s effort to
attribute grave abuse of discretion to the Arbitral Tribunal
simply because of the unfavorable judgment against it.
Megaworld’s assertion that there was misapprehension of
facts and that the evidence is insufficient to support the
decision is also untenable. The Decisions of the Arbitral
Tribunal and the Court of Appeals adequately explain the
reasons therefor and are supported by substantial
evidence.
3. NAPOCOR vs Alonzo-Leasto
Distinguished from Quasi-legislative function
Lupangco vs CA
It is an axiom in administrative law that administrative
authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the
issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules
and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to
the end in view. If shown to bear no reasonable relation to
the purposes for which they are authorized to be issued,
then they must be held to be invalid.
Jurisdiction
1. Chin vs LBP
2. Azarcon vs Sandiganbayan
However, we find no provision in the NIRC constituting such
person a public officer by reason of such requirement. The BIRs
power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary
cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a
public officer. The prosecution argues that Article 222 of the
Revised Penal Code x x x defines the individuals covered by the
term officers under Article 217
ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS
“Contested case” means any proceeding, including licensing, in
which the legal rights, duties or privileges asserted by specific
parties as required by the Constitution or by law are to be
determined after hearing.
Rules and Regulations
SECTION 3. Filing.—(1) Every agency shall file with the
University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified
copies of every rule adopted by it. 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.
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent
functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section
under pain of disciplinary action.
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing
agency and shall be open to public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effectivity.—In addition to other rule-making
requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book,
each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date
of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law,
or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public
health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be
expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The agency
shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules
known to persons who may be affected by them.
SECTION 5. Publication and Recording.—The University of the
Philippines Law Center shall:
(1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed
with it during the preceding quarter; and
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published
and remaining in effect, together with a complete index and
appropriate tables.
SECTION 6. Omission of Some Rules.—(1) The University of
the Philippines Law Center may omit from the bulletin or the
codification any rule if its publication would be unduly
cumbersome, expensive or otherwise inexpedient, but copies of
that rule shall be made available on application to the agency
which adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating
the general subject matter of the omitted rule and new copies
thereof may be obtained.
(2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which,
pursuant to law is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty
shall in all cases be published in full text.
SECTION 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules.—The
University of the Philippines Law Center shall furnish one (1)
free copy each of every issue of the bulletin and of the codified
rules or supplements to the Office of the President, Congress,
all appellate courts and the National Library. The bulletin and the
codified rules shall be made available free of charge to such
public officers or agencies as the Congress may select, and to
other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and
mailing or distribution costs.
SECTION 8. Judicial Notice.—The court shall take judicial
notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published
in the bulletin or the codified rules.
SECTION 9. Public Participation.—(1) If not otherwise required
by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate
notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the
opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless
the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of
general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing
thereon.
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be
observed.
CHAPTER 3
Adjudication
SECTION 10. Compromise and Arbitration.—To expedite
administrative proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims
and obviate expensive litigations, every agency shall, in the
public interest, encourage amicable settlement, compromise
and arbitration.
SECTION 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases.—(1) In
any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice and
hearing. The notice shall be served at least five (5) days before
the date of the hearing and shall state the date, time and place
of the hearing.
9|Page
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence
and argument on all issues. If not precluded by law, informal
disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation,
agreed settlement or default.
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings.
SECTION 12. Rules of Evidence.—In a contested case:
(1) The agency may admit and give probative value to evidence
commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct
of their affairs.
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies
or excerpts, if the original is not readily available. Upon request,
the parties shall be given opportunity to compare the copy with
the original. If the original is in the official custody of a public
officer, a certified copy thereof may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses
presented against him and to submit rebuttal evidence.
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and
of generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within its
specialized knowledge. The parties shall be notified and
afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed.
SECTION 13. Subpoena.—In any contested case, the agency
shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or
the production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent
data, upon request of any party before or during the hearing
upon showing of general relevance. Unless otherwise provided
by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid
of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the
contested case being heard falls. The Court may punish
contumacy or refusal as contempt.
SECTION 14. Decision.—Every decision rendered by the
agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
The agency shall decide each case within thirty (30) days
following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the
decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their
counsel of record, if any, or to them.
SECTION 15. Finality of Order.—The decision of the agency
shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the
receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless
within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if
proper, has been perfected. One motion for reconsideration may
be filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period.
SECTION 16. Publication and Compilation of Decisions.—(1)
Every agency shall publish and make available for public
inspection all decisions or final orders in the adjudication of
contested cases.
(2) It shall be the duty of the records officer of the agency or his
equivalent functionary to prepare a register or compilation of
those decisions or final orders for use by the public.
SECTION 17. Licensing Procedure.—(1) When the grant,
renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is required to be
preceded by notice and hearing, the provisions concerning
contested cases shall apply insofar as practicable.
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and
regulations or when public security, health, or safety require
otherwise, no license may be withdrawn, suspended, revoked or
annulled without notice and hearing.
SECTION 18. Non-expiration of License.—Where the licensee
has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a
license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the
existing license shall not expire until the application shall have
been finally determined by the agency.
Administrative Appeal in Contested Cases
SECTION 19. Appeal.—Unless otherwise provided by law or
executive order, an appeal from a final decision of the agency
may be taken to the Department head.
SECTION 20. Perfection of Administrative Appeals.—(1)
Administrative appeals under this Chapter shall be perfected
within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a copy of the decision
complained of by the party adversely affected, by filing with the
agency which adjudicated the case a notice of appeal, serving
copies thereof upon the prevailing party and the appellate
agency, and paying the required fees.
(2) If a motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall
have the right to perfect his appeal during the remainder of the
period for appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of
denial. If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the
aggrieved party shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
resolution of reversal within which to perfect his appeal.
(3) The agency shall, upon perfection of the appeal, transmit the
records of the case to the appellate agency.
SECTION 21. Effect of Appeal.—The appeal shall stay the
decision appealed from unless otherwise provided by law, or the
appellate agency directs execution pending appeal, as it may
deem just, considering the nature and circumstances of the
case.
SECTION 22. Action on Appeal.—The appellate agency shall
review the records of the proceedings and may, on its own
initiative or upon motion, receive additional evidence.
SECTION 23. Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency.—In any
contested case, the decision of the appellate agency shall
become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt by
the parties of a copy thereof.
SECTION 24. Hearing Officers.—(1) Each agency shall have
such number of qualified and competent members of the base
as hearing officers as may be necessary for the hearing and
adjudication of contested cases.
(2) No hearing officer shall engaged in the performance of
prosecuting functions in any contested case or any factually
related case.
SECTION 25. Judicial Review.—(1) Agency decisions shall be
subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and
applicable laws.
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency
decision may seek judicial review.
(3) The action for judicial review may be brought against the
agency, or its officers, and all indispensable and necessary
parties as defined in the Rules of Court.
10 | P a g e
(4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing
with the agency within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
thereof a notice of appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition
for review of the order. Copies of the petition shall be served
upon the agency and all parties of record. The petition shall
contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the
grounds relied upon for the review, and shall be accompanied
with a true copy of the order appealed from, together with copies
of such material portions of the records as are referred to therein
and other supporting papers. The petition shall be under oath
and shall how, by stating the specific material dates, that it was
filed within the period fixed in this chapter.
(5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of the final administrative decision. One (1)
motion for reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is
denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining
period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of
denial. If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the
appellant shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
resolution to perfect his appeal.
(6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by
statute or, in the absence thereof, in any court of competent
jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the
Rules of Court.
(7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a
whole. The findings of fact of the agency when supported by
substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically
provided otherwise by law.
SECTION 26. Transmittal of Record.—Within fifteen (15) days
from the service of the petition for review, the agency shall
transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the entire
records of the proceeding under review. The record to be
transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all parties to the
proceedings. The court may require or permit subsequent
correction or additions to the record.
Cases:
1. Santiago vs Alikpala
It is even more indispensable, therefore, that such quasi-judicial
agencies, clothed with the solemn responsibility of depriving
members of the Armed Forces of their liberties, even of their
lives, as a matter of fact, should be held all the more strictly
bound to manifest fidelity to the fundamental concept of fairness
and the avoidance of arbitrariness for which due process stands
as a living vital principle. If it were otherwise, then, abuses, even
if not intended, might creep in, and the safeguards so carefully
thrown about the freedom of an individual, ignored or
disregarded. Against such an eventuality, the vigilance of the
judiciary furnishes a shield. That is one of its grave
responsibilities. Such a trust must be lived up to; such a task
cannot be left undone.
2. NDC vs Collector of Customs
Respondent Collector committed grave abuse of discretion
because petitioner NDC was not given an opportunity to prove
that the television set involved is not a cargo that needs to be
manifested. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
required where the appeal to the administrative superior is not a
plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
as where it is undisputed that the respondent officer has acted
in utter disregard of the principle of due process.
Cardinal Requirement of Due Process
1. Fablla vs CA
In administrative proceedings, due process has been
recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or
constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may
affect a respondent’s legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be
heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present
witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s
rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so
constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a
reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4)
a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial
evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or
contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.
2. Lupo vs Admin Action Board
Complaints against employees belonging to the CSC system is
governed by PD 807 says that a formal complaint that should
first be filed after which the respondent must be given the option
to submit her self to a formal investigation if her answer to the
complaint is found to be unsatisfactory. Here, not only was Lupo
is given a chance to submit her self to a formal investigation, the
DOTC secretary immediately slapped her with a 1 year
suspension based only a mere informal inquiry. Also, the AAB
started hearing her case without the benefit of a formal
investigation. The cardinal primary rights of due to process in
administrative hearings must always be observed. Lupo must
not be denied her right to a formal and full blown administrative
proceeding.
3. KANLAON Construction vs. NLRC
Gen. Rule : Only lawyers are allowed to appear before the labor
arbiter
Exemption:
Non-lawyer member of the organization
Non-lawyer representing himself as party to the case
Member of the legal aid duly recognized by IBP or DOJ
Engineer Estacio can appear however his appearance on behalf
of Kanlaon required written proof of authorization. Absent this
authority whatever statement and declaration made before the
arbiter is not binding to the petitioner.
Rules subject to SC modification
1. First Lepanto vs CA
Circular 1-91 effectively repealed or superseded Article 82
of E.O. 226 insofar as the manner and method of enforcing
the right to appeal from decisions of the BOI are concerned.
Appeals from decisions of the BOI, which by statute was
previously allowed to be filed directly with the Supreme
Court, should now be brought to the Court of Appeals.
Technical Rules not Applicable
The Court held therein that the rule against forum shopping
applied only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to
administrative cases.[30] Thus, even if complainants filed in
the Ombudsman and the sangguniang bayan identical
complaints against private respondent, they did not violate the
rule against forum shopping because their complaint was in the
nature of an administrative case.(Office of the Ombudsman vs
Rodriguez)
Administrative Res Judicata
Judge Basilla vs. Becamon
Applying the principle of res judicata or bar by prior judgment,
the present administrative case becomes dismissible.
The Court held that applied the principle of res judicata or bar by
prior judgment. Under the said doctrine, a matter that has been
adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed
to have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any
subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the
11 | P a g e
same cause. It provides that a final judgment on the merits
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to
the rights of the parties and their privies; and constitutes an
absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim,
demand, or cause of action. Res judicata is based on the ground
that the party to be affected, or some other with whom he is in
privity, has litigated the same matter in the former action in a
court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to
litigate it again. This principle frees the parties from undergoing
all over again the rigors of unnecessary suits and repetitious
trials. At the same time, it prevents the clogging of court dockets.
Equally important, res judicata stabilizes rights and promotes
the rule of law.”
2. NHA vs. Almeida
In fine, it should be remembered that quasi-judicial powers
will always be subject to true judicial power—that which is
held by the courts. Quasi-judicial power is defined as that
power of adjudication of an administrative agency for the
"formulation of a final order." This function applies to the
actions, discretion and similar acts of public administrative
officers or bodies who are required to investigate facts, or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw
conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action
and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. However,
administrative agencies are not considered courts, in their
strict sense. The doctrine of separation of powers reposes
the three great powers into its three (3) branches—the
legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Each
department is co-equal and coordinate, and supreme in its
own sphere. Accordingly, the executive department may
not, by its own fiat, impose the judgment of one of its
agencies, upon the judiciary. Indeed, under the expanded
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is empowered to
"determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
3. Abelita III vs Doria
While the present case and the administrative case are
based on the same essential facts and circumstances, the
doctrine of res judicata will not apply.
There is no identity of causes of action in the cases. While
identity of causes of action is not required in the application
of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of
judgment, it is required that there must always be identity of
parties in the first and second cases.
For res judicata to apply, the following requisites must be
present:
the former judgment or order must be final;
(b) it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that
is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or
stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case;
(c) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and
(d) there must be, between the first and second
actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause
of action; this requisite is satisfied if the two actions are
substantially between the same parties.
Fact-Finding, Licensing, and Rate Fixing
SEC vs. INTERPORT SERVICES
SEC retains jurisdiction to investigate
Section 53 of the Securities Regulations Code clearly provides
that criminal complaints for violations of rules and regulations
enforced or administered by the SEC shall be referred to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for preliminary investigation, while
the SEC nevertheless retains limited investigatory powers.
Additionally, the SEC may still impose the appropriate
administrative sanctions under Section 54 of the
aforementioned law.

SEC vs. GMA Network, Inc.

Rate-fixing is a legislative function which concededly has been

delegated to the SEC by R.A. No. 3531 and other pertinent laws.
The due process clause, however, permits the courts to
determine whether the regulation issued by the SEC is
reasonable and within the bounds of its rate-fixing authority and
to strike it down when it arbitrarily infringes on a person’s right
to property.

VIGAN ELECTRIC CO. vs. Public Service Commission

Partakes of the nature of a quasi-judicial function and that

having been issued without previous notice and hearing said
order is clearly violative of the due process clause, and, hence,
null and void.

12 | P a g e