REMEDIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

Questions and Answers in Administrative Law

Defination of Administrative Law Law regulating the powers, procedures, and acts of public administration. It applies to all public officials and public agencies. As distinguished from legislative and judicial authority, administrative authority entails the power to issue rules and regulations based on statutes, grant licenses and permits to facilitate the conduct of government business, initiate investigations of and provide remedies for complaints or problems, and issue orders directing parties to conform to governing statutes or rules. An administrative-law judge is a government official with quasi-judicial powers, including the authority to conduct hearings, make findings of fact, and recommend resolution of disputes concerning the agency's actions. What is the essence of due process in administrative proceedings? Explain. ANS: In administrative proceedings, due process simply means an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the order complained of; it cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict jurisprudential sense. A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the preliminary findings and recommendations; he is entitled only to a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence. (Vealasquez v. CA, G.R. No. 150732, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 357). Note that it is the administrative order, not the preliminary report, which is the basis of any further remedies the losing party in an administrative case may pursue. (Viva Footwear Mfg. Corp. v. SEC, et al., G.R. No. 163235, April 27, 2005). Exhaustion of administrative remedies. The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation. Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings. Exceptions (c) and (e) are applicable to the present case. (Rep., et al. v. Lacap, et al., G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007). Exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The underlying principles of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical reasons for the principle. The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and speedier solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts for reasons of law, comity, and convenience will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum. (Berdin, et al. v. Hon. Eufracio Mascarinas, et al., G.R. No. 135928, July 6, 2007, Tinga, J).

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the courts judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of a courts intervention is fatal to ones cause of action as aptly explained by the Supreme Court in the case of University of the Philippines v. Catungal, Jr., et al., (G.R. No. 121863, May 5, 1997), to wit: The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical reasons for the principle. The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and more speedy solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts for reasons of law, comity, and convenience will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum. The rule in administrative law is that parties requesting judicial action must first exhaust their remedies in the executive branch. This is premised not only on practical considerations but also on the comity existing between different departments of the government, which comity requires the court to stay their hands until the administrative processes have been completed. (Madrinan vs. Sinco, 110 Phil. 160) Further, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, recourse through court action, as a general rule, cannot prosper until all the remedies have been exhausted at the administrative level, (Pacana vs. Consunji, 108 SCRA 631[1981]; Pestaas et al. v. Dyogi, et al., 81 SCRA 574 [1978]; Antonio v. Tanco, 65 SCRA 448 [1975]). ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES A party cannot, without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, seek court intervention by filing an action for replevin for the grant of relief during the pendency of an administrative proceedings.

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

I. INTRODUCTION

Weight of Evidence: - The balance of evidence and in whose favor it tilts. This refers to the indication of the greater evidence between the parties . This depends on the judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules and by jurisprudence. Sufficiency of Evidence- refers to the adequacy of evidence. Such evidence in character, weight, or amount, as will legally justify the judicial action demanded or prayed by the parties. This refers to the question as to whether the evidence amounts or meets the required quantum needed to arrive at a decision in a civil, criminal, or administrative case; or to prove matters of defense or mitigation or to overcome a prima facie case or a presumption II. HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES a). Proof beyond reasonable doubt b). Clear and convincing proof c). Preponderance of Evidence d). Substantial evidence 2. a). Conclusive- overwhelming or incontrovertible b). Prima Facie- that which suffices until rebutted c). Probable Cause- as that required for filing of an Information in Court or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest III. QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED A. Criminal cases: Proof of Guilt Must be Beyond reasonable doubt. 1. That degree of proof, which, excluding the possibility of error, produces moral certainty. If the inculpatory facts are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. B. Civil Cases: Preponderance of Evidence. This means that he weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidenced of one is superior to the other IV. RULES IN THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE 1. Courts shall consider and take into consideration : (a) all facts which were presented during the trial whether testimonial, object, or documentary (b) all facts which were stipulated or judicially admitted (c) those judicially noticed and (d) all facts which are presumed 2. No extraneous matters shall be considered even if the Court knows them as existing in his personal capacity 3. In determining the weight and sufficiency of a party s evidence, the court shall consider : A.) All the facts and circumstances of the case. B). The testimonial characteristics of a witness such as: i). The manner of testifying by a witness which includes his conduct and behavior on the witness stand, the emphasis, gestures, and inflection of his voice in answering questions. This is the reason why the rules require the witness to personally testify in open court. ii). The intelligence of the witness. This refers o this position to perceive by the sue of his organs of sense, his opportunity for accurate observation and faithful recollection of the facts to which he is testifying. This intelligence must be coupled with integrity, a general reputation for truth, honesty and integrity. This is because a witness to be believed must be truthful in his narration of correct facts. iii). The means and opportunity of knowing the facts which includes his presence and observation of the facts. iv). The nature of the facts to which the witness is testifying such as: whether he did the act as a participant, whether he saw the occurrence of an accident as he was a passenger; the identity of a person who is an old acquaintance; thus as to the circumstances of the birth a person, the mother

would be the best witness on this point mother. v). The absence or presence of interest or basis for bias or prejudice. vi). Personal Credibility of the witness, referring to his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity as for example: (vii) the case of an young girl who makes a complaint for rape ; as for instance the accused claiming self defense who is well built, broad shouldered a boxer and expert in martial arts claiming the victim of assault by an ordinary person viii). The probability or improbability of the testimony C. The number of witnesses. However witnesses are to been weighed not numbered because quantitative superiority does not necessarily mean legal preponderance. Thus an accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of one witness. But where the evidence for both parties is principally testimonial where the version of each exhibit equal tendency to be true and accurate, and the witnesses have not betrayed themselves by major contradictions or other indications of falsehood, there exists every reason to measure preponderance by numerical advantage. . 4. The Court has the power to stop the further presentation of evidence on the same point as when the additional evidence is only corroborative or the point has already been established, or when it results to unnecessary delay 5. As to the testimony of a witness: A). the court must consider everything stated by the witness during the direct, cross, re-direct and re-cross examinations B). the testimony of a witness maybe believed in part and disbelieved in other parts, depending on the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. It is accepted as a matter of common sense that if certain parts of the testimony are true, his testimony can not be disregarded entirely. Contrast this with the so called Falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus 6. The Preference of Evidence must be observed in case of conflict: A). Physical or Object evidence is evidence of the highest order and prevails over contrary testimonial evidence B). Documentary over testimonial evidence C). Positive over negative evidence. E.G. positive identification over alibi; an assertion of the occurrence of a thing over a plain denial. Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are deemed negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of credence. ( Wa-acon vs. People, 510 SCRA 429) D). Direct over circumstantial E). Testimony in open court over sworn statements or affidavits F). The Admitted Facts Rule - evidence of whatever description must yield to the extent that it conflicts with admitted or clearly established facts . Thus courts give superior credit to witnesses whose testimonies on material points are in accord with facts already established ( Frondarina vs. Malazarte 510 SCRA 223) 7. Rule in criminal cases A. For conviction i). For conviction: the prosecution must adduce proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt i.e. moral certainty not absolute certainty ii). Every doubt is to be resolved in favor of the accused iii) Accusation is not synonymous with guilt iv Accused need not present evidence if the evidence against him is weak because conviction must be on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the accused B. Affirmative Defenses be shown by clear, positive and convincing evidence C. Two Witness Rule in Treason

D. If conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. The requirements under section 4 must be present i). There must be more than one circumstance ii). The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven iii). The combination of all such circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt E. If based on Extra Judicial Confession, same must be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti IV. CREDIBLE EVIDENCE: Evidence to be believed requires: A.) That it be credible in itself i.e. such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. Testimony must be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe B). Must come from a credible source- a credible witness is one who testifies in a categorical, straightforward spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross examination V. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURT by trial court generally accorded respect by appellate courts as the former have first hand contact with the evidence and were able to observe the witness as they testified. In matters concerning the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of trial courts unless they neglected, ignored or misappreciated material and substantial facts, which could materially affect the results of the case. VI. EVIDENCE ON MOTION When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be wholly or partially on oral testimony or depositions. A. This refers to collateral issues or motions based on facts not appearing on record such as (i) proof of service by publication (ii) relief from order of default (iii) Taking of depositions (iv) motion for new trial (v) relief from judgment (vi) issuance of writ of preliminary injunction
Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt. If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt. The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. AFTER THE PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS OF THE ACCUSED? THE ACCUSED MAY DO THE FOLLOWING:

1. File a demurrer to evidence with leave or without leave of court 2. Adduce his evidence unless he waives the same WHAT IS A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE? B It is a motion to dismiss the case filed by the defense after the prosecution rests on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution B It has been said that a motion to dismiss under the Rules of Court takes place of a demurrer, which pleading raised questions of law as to sufficiency of the pleading apparent on the face thereof B In the same manner as a demurrer, a motion to dismiss presents squarely before the court a question as to the sufficiency of the facts alleged therein to constitute a cause of action WHAT ARE THE WAYS BY WHICH A CASE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION? 1. The court may dismiss the case on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the right to be heard 2. Upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court THE PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE. THE COURT THINKS THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED. WHAT DOES IT NEED TO DO IN CASE IT WISHES TO DISMISS THE CASE? B The court may dismiss the case on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the right to be heard WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE PROSECUTION WOULD BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE COURT DISMISSES THE CASE? B The prosecution is given the chance to explain itself of circumstances that may have lead to its failure to adduce enough evidence to support its case HOW DO YOU FILE A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE? B Within 5 days after the prosecution rests, the accused should file a motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence, stating in such motion his grounds for such B The prosecution shall have 5 days within which to oppose the motion B If the motion is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within 10 days from notice of grant of leave of court B The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within 10 days from its receipt of the demurrer WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITH LEAVE OF COURT? B The effect of its filing is that if the court grants the demurrer, the case will be dismissed B If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may still adduce evidence on his behalf WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT? B If the court denies the demurrer to evidence which was filed without leave of court, the accused is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on basis of the evidence of the prosecution B This is because demurrer to evidence is not a matter of right but is discretionary on the court B Permission of the court has to be obtained before it is filed, otherwise the accused loses certain rights THE ACCUSED FILED A DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT. THE DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE IS DENIED. IS THERE ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE COURT? B No B The general rule is that filing of a demurrer of evidence without leave of court, which is subsequently denied, is a waiver of presentation of evidence

B Nonetheless, if the demurrer of evidence is filed before the prosecution rests its case, there would be no waiver to present evidence. As the prosecution hasn t finished presenting its evidence, there is still insufficiency of evidence. WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF THE DEMURRER IS GRANTED AND THE ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED? B The accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless the court declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. B If the trial court issues an order or renders judgment not only granting the demurrer to evidence of the accused and acquitting him but also on the civil liability of the accused to the private offended party, said judgment on its civil case would be a nullity for violation of the rights of the accused to due process. WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED IF THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IS DENIED? B As a general rule, there can be no appeal or certiorari on the denial of the demurrer to evidence, since it is an interlocutory order which doesn t pass judgment on the merits of the case B In such instance, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on his behalf not only on the criminal aspect but also on the civil aspect of the case