1 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

Chapter 1
General Considerations

Administrative Law
Dean Roscoe Pound - That branch of modern
law under which the executive department of
the government, acting in a quasi-judicial
capacity, interferes with the conduct of the
individual for the purpose of promoting the
well-being of the community, as under the laws
regulating the public interest; professions;
trades and callings; rates and prices; laws for
protection of public health and safety; and the
promotion of public convenience.
Professor Goodnow - That part of the public
law which fixes the organization of the
government and determines the competence of
the authorities who execute the law and
indicates to the individual remedies for the
violation of his right.
Justice Frankfurter - Branch of law which deals
with the field of legal control exercised by law-
administering agencies other than courts, and
the field of control exercised by courts over
such agencies.

Object and scope of Admin Law: The regulation
of private right for public welfare.
Origin of Admin Law Legislation
Justification of Admin Law Expediency

Admin law resulted from the following:
(a) pervasive prolixity of the modern age
(b) the increasing difficulties confronting the
government

Two Major Powers of an Administrative
Agency
(1) Quasi-legislative authority or rule-making
power
(2) Quasi-judicial power or adjudicatory
function
Development of administrative law

Separation of
Powers

Duties
Difficulties as the
population grew
and people's
activities
multiplied
Legislative Laid down all rules
of conduct
To deal directly &
expeditiously w/
every problem
Executive Direct and
enforcement of
rules of conduct
To directly decide
controversies w/c
presented mostly
only factual issues
Judiciary Application and
interpretation of
rules of conduct
Task of
enforcement of
the law became
more complicated

Other reasons for development

Separation of powers






Legislative
No longer had either the
time or the needed
expertise to attend to
these new problems.
Lack of interest as most of
these problems did not
immediately affect the
constituent of its
members.

Executive
No longer had either the
time or the needed
expertise to attend to
these new problems


Judiciary
Natural reluctance to
interfere with this
problems which they felt
were the concern of and
should be resolve the
executive department


The obvious solution was DELEGATION OF
POWER.
Effect of delegation: The legislature is able to
relieve itself of the responsibility to legislate
directly on relatively minor matters and of
attending as well to the adjudication of
essentially factual questions that more properly
pertain to the executive authorities. In this
manner, the legislature can concentrate on
matters of national and greater significance.

Present status of administrative law:
(a) Still in the state of flux
(b) Boundaries are as yet undefined
(c) Still undergoing a process of experimentation
(d) Proceeds on a trial-and-error basis as it seeks to
discover the most acceptable ways

Sources of Administrative Law

(1) Constitutional or Statutory enactments creating
administrative bodies.
(2) Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of
administrative bodies and their defining powers,
rights, inhibitions, among others, and the effects
of their determinations and regulations.
(3) Rules and regulations issued by the
administrative bodies in pursuance of the
purpose for which they were created.
2 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

(4) Determinations and orders of the administrative
bodies in the settlement of controversies arising
in their respective fields.

Administration
Distinguish Government from Administration

Government


Administration
Agency / instrumentality
through which the will of
the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.

Transitional in nature,
which actually mans the
government and is more
or less permanent fixture
in every State.



Administration understood in 2 senses
(1) Institution
(2) Function
Administration as an Institution
Refers to the aggregate individuals in whose
hands the reins of government are for the time
being
Refers to the persons who actually run the
government during their prescribed term of
office
Includes all the personnel in the executive
branch who are charged with the enforcement
of the law

Administration as a Function
Actual running of the government by the
executive authorities through the enforcement
of the law and the implementation of the
policies.

Administration as an activity
(1) Internal Administration
(2) External Administration

Internal Administration
Covers those rules defining the relations of
public functionaries inter se
Embraces the whole range of the law of public
officials.
Rules laid down in a particular agency or office
Examples: prescribing work assignments or job
descriptions and uniforms; procedures for
submission of reports

External Administration
Defines the relations of the public office with
the public in general
Do not necessarily affect the personnel of the
office but are promulgated by observance by
those who have dealings or transactions with
the said office
These rules are promulgated by the
administrative agency in the exercise of its
quasi-legislative authority for the regulation of
specific matters placed under its jurisdiction.
Examples: Energy Regulatory Board on
adjustments in the rates charged by distributors
of electricity; POEA on recruitment for overseas
employment

Administration distinguished from law


Administration


Law

Preventive

Punitive (command with
sanctions to be applied in
case of violation)


Personal


Impersonal

Has more sympathetic
regard for the individual

Steps back and fold its arm
and maintains a watchful
eyes on those who violate
its order


Seeks to spare the
individual from the
punishment


Pounced upon and visited
with the threatened
punishment

Clarify certain ambiguous
provisions in statutes
through the issuance of the
interpretative regulations



Viewed as welcome
balancing factor


Harshness


Chapter 2
Administrative Agency

Administrative Agency
A body endowed with quasi- legislature and
quasi- judicial powers for the purpose of
enabling it to carry out laws entrusted to it for
enforcement or execution.
Agency
Any department, bureau, office, commission,
authority or officer of National Government
authorized by law or executive order to make
rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges
and adjudicate cases; research institutions with
respect to the licensing functions; government
3 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

corporation with respect to function regulating
private rights, privileges, occupation or
business; and officials in the exercise of
disciplinary power as provided by law.
Government instrumentality
Agency of the National Government not
integrated within the department framework,
vested with special functions or jurisdiction by
law, endowed with some or ifnot all
corporate powers, administering special funds,
and enjoying operational autonomy.( Malaga
vs. Penachos Jr.)


Chartered institution
Agency organized or operating under a special
charter, and vested by law with fictions relating
the specific constitutional policies or objectives.

Department
An executive department created by law.

Bureau
Any principal subdivision of department

Office
Refers within the framework of the
Government organization, to any major
functional unit of a department or bureau,
including Regional office.

Instrumentality
Any agency of the National Government, not
integrated within the department framework,
vested with special function.

Agency attached to the department
Lateral relationship between the department or
its equivalent and the attached agency or
corporation for the purpose of policy and
program coordination.
Note: An attached agency has a larger measure
of independence from the Department to which
it is attached than one which is under
departmental supervision and control or
administrative supervision.
Note: The purpose of attachment is merely for
policy and program coordination.
Note: The Administrative Code provides that
supervision and control shall not apply to
chartered institutions attached to a
Department.
Authority
Term used to designate both incorporated and
non-incorporated agencies or instrumentalities
of the government.

Government owned and controlled corporation
Any agency organized as a stock or non-stock
corporation vested with functions related 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 51% of its capital stock,
is a government-owned or controlled
corporation.

Nature of an Administrative Agency
It is an arm of the legislature in so far as it is
authorized to promulgate rules that have the
force of law by virtue of valid delegation of
legislative power.
May be considered as a court because it
performs a function of a particular judicial
character, as when it decides factual and
sometimes even legal questions as an incident
of its general power of regulation.
Basically, an administrative agency pertains to
the executive department because its principal
function is the implementation of the law in
accordance with the policies and instructions
laid down by the legislature.

*Administrative bodies (board, commission, authority,
administration, bureau, agency, council, committee,
office)

Classification of administrative bodies
(1) Those set up to offer some gratuity, grant or
special privileges. (Philippine Veterans
Association)
(2) Those set up to carry on certain actual business of
government. (Bureau of Customs)
(3) Those set up to perform some business service for
the public. (now defunct Bureau of Posts)
(4) Those set up to regulate business affected with
public interest. (LTFRB)
(5) Those set up to regulate private business and
individuals under the police power. (SEC)
(6) Those set up to adjust individual controversies
because of some strong social policy involved.
(NLRC)

Creation and Abolition of Administrative Agencies
Constitution - may be altered or abolish ONLY
through constitutional amendments.
Statute - may be amended or repealed by
legislature in good faith.

Advantages of Administrative Agency
(1) Expertise derived from specialized training
and experience.
(2) Adaptability to change and ease in reacting to
a new emergency situation.
4 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

Relation to Regular Departments










Legislative Department

The administrative body acts
as an agent of the law-
making body and so is bound
to obey and implement the
legislative will.

Note: Insofar as it is a
creature of the legislature, it
(administrative body) may be
abolished at its will, or its
incidents (such as salary and
emoluments or
appropriations attached
thereto) altered in the
discretion of the legislature.

Effect: The legislature exerts
a great deal of influence
upon the administrative body
that can impair its
independence.





Executive Department



The administrative agency
pertains to the executive
department and so comes
under the constitutional
control of the President,
which control cannot be
withdrawn or limited even
by the legislature.

Note: The President may
issue his own orders to the
administrative agency and
review and, if necessary
revise or even reverse its
decisions.

Effects:
- The administrative
agency cannot claim
independence from the
executive department
given the power of
control exercised by the
President.
- Anomalous situation
where a delegate of the
legislature must not only












The courts may review the
factual findings of
administrative offices by
authority of law, or when
necessary under the due
process clause, if such
determinations have been
made arbitrarily.

Judicial Department


The courts can review, or
even reverse, the
administrative acts even
of the Chief Executive.

Note: Courts of justice as a
matter of policy, review
administrative
adjudications only as a last
resort and, usually, only
when questions of law are
involved.



Chapter 3
Powers of Administrative Agencies

Classification of the powers of the administrative
bodies:
(1) Quasi-legislative
(2) Quasi-judicial
Quasi-legislative
Otherwise known as the power of subordinate
legislation. It permits the body to promulgate
rules intended to carry out the provisions of
particular laws. The jurisdiction of the
administrative body is quasi-legislative if it
prescribes a rule for the future. The nature of
the quasi-legislative power is public.

Quasi-judicial
Otherwise known as the power of adjudication.
It enables the administrative body to resolve in
a manner essentially judicial, factual and
sometimes even legal questions incidental to its
primary power of enforcement of law. It
prescribes a rule for the past and is private in
nature.

The Quasi-Legislative Power
It may be defined as the 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.

Distinction of Legislative Power from Quasi-Legislative
power

Quasi-legislative power Legislative power

Includes the power to issue
administrative rules and
regulations. It also gives
discretion to administrative
bodies to determine how the

The power to promulgate
laws and the kind of
discretion given to the
legislature is to determine
what the law shall be.
5 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

law shall be enforced.


Source: The power to promulgate
administrative regulations is derived from the
legislature by virtue of a valid delegation. This
may be expressed or implied.

Tests of Delegation

(1) Completeness test the 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.
(2) Sufficient Standard test the law must offer a
sufficient standard to specify the limits of the
delegates authority, announce the legislative
policy, and specify the conditions under which it is
to be implemented. The standard is usually
embodied in the law itself.
Among the accepted sufficient standards are: public
interest, simplicity, economy and efficiency, and
public welfare.

Quasi-Judicial Power
It has been defined as the power of the
administrative authorities to make
determinations of facts in the performance of
their official duties and to apply the law as they
construe it to the facts so found. The exercise of
this power is only incidental to their main
function, which is the enforcement of the law.
However, their determination of legal questions
is subject to review by the courts of justices.
The quasi-judicial power is incidental to the
power of regulation vested in the
administrative body but it is often expressly
conferred by the legislature through specific
provisions in the charter of the agency. This
power is needed to enable the administrative
officers to perform their executive duties.

Determinative Powers

Classification of determinative powers:
(1) Enabling powers are those that permit the
doing of an act which the law undertakes to
regulate and which would be unlawful without
government approval.
(2) Directing powers order the doing or
performance of particular acts to ensure
compliance with the law and are often
exercised for corrective purposes.
o Dispensing power allows the
administrative officer to relax the
general operation of a law or exempt
from the performance of a general
duty.
o Summary power are those involving
the use by administrative authorities of
force upon persons or things without
the necessity of previous judicial
warrant.
o Examining power enables the
administrative body to inspect the
records and premises, and investigate
the activities, of persons or entities
coming under its jurisdiction. This will
include:
Issuance of subpoenas
Swearing in of witnesses
Interrogation of witnesses
Calling for production of books,
papers and records
Requiring that books, papers
and records be made available
for inspection
Inspection of premises
Requiring written answers to
questionnaires
Requiring the filing of
statements
Exercise of Powers
The duties of administrative bodies are
generally considered discretionary, especially as they
involve the interpretation or construction and
enforcement of the law and the appreciation of factual
questions that may be submitted to it for resolution.
Some administrative duties are ministerial which means
that no judgment or discretion is required or allowed in
their exercise.


Chapter 4
The Quasi-Legislative Power

Kinds of Administrative Regulations
(1) Legislative Regulation
(2) Interpretative Regulation


Legislative Regulation
Accorded by the courts or by express provision
of statute the force and effect of law
immediately upon going into effect
The administrative agency is supplementing the
statute, filling in the details or making the
law, and usually acting pursuant to a specific
delegation of legislative power
In the nature of subordinate legislation
designed to implement a primary legislation
providing the details thereof
Issued pursuant to a valid delegation of
legislative power

Classification of Legislative Regulation:
6 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

(1) Supplementary - intended to fill in the details of
the law and to make explicit what is only
general
(2) Contingent - issued upon the happening of a
certain contingency which the administrative
body is given the discretion to determine or to
ascertain some circumstances and on the basis
thereof may enforce or suspend the operation
of a law.


Interpretative Regulation
Are those which purport to do no more than
interpret the statute being administered, to say
what it means
Constitutes the administrator's construction of
a statute
Issued by the administrative body as an incident
to its power to enforce the law and is intended
merely to clarify its provisions for proper
observance by the people.
At best advisory for it is the courts that finally
determine what the law means (Peralta vs. CSC)


Requisites of Administrative Regulation
(1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the
legislature.
(2) It must be within the scope of the authority
given by the legislature.
(3) It must be promulgated in accordance with the
prescribed procedure.
(4) It must be reasonable.

Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature.
Authority to promulgate the regulation is
usually conferred by the Charter itself of the
administrative body or by the law it is supposed
to enforce.
Limitation: When Congress authorizes
promulgation of administrative rules and
regulations to implement given legislation, all
that is required is that the regulation be not in
contravention with it, but to conform to the
standards that the law prescribes.

It must be within the scope of the authority given by
the legislature.
Assuming a valid authorization, it is still
necessary that the regulation promulgated
must not be ultra vires or beyond the authority
conferred.
The rule-making power of a public
administrative body is a delegated legislative
power, which it may not use either to abridge
the authority given by congress or the
Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the
scope intended. (Conte vs. COA)
In the case of People vs. Maceren, the issued a
regulation prohibiting electro-fishing was
challenged on the ground that the Secretary of
DENR exceeded the powers conferred upon him
since the law did not prohibit fishing byy
electricity. The SC ruled that the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commissioner of Fisheries were
powerless to penalize it.
The rule-making power must be
confined to details for regulating the
mode or proceeding to carry into effect
the law as it has been enacted. The
power cannot be extended to amending
or expanding the statutory
requirements or to embrace matters not
covered by the statute.
In Bautista vs Juinio, the SC sustained a letter of
instruction prohibiting private extra-heavy and
heavy vehicles from using public streets on
weekends and holidays but annulled as ultra
vires the administrative regulation calling for
the impounding of the offending vehicles. As
the penalty imposed by the law was only a fine
and suspension of registration, the Court
declared that the impounding of a vehicle
finds no statutory justification.
In Metropolitan Traffic Command vs. Gonong,
the SC declared the removal by traffic enforcers
of the license plates of illegally parked vehicle
as illegal. Said law did not include the removal
of license plates, or even the confiscation of the
license of the offending driver as a penalty for
illegal parking.

It must be promulgated in accordance with the
prescribed procedure.
As in the enactment of laws, the promulgation
of administrative regulations of general
application does not require previous notice
and hearing, the only exception being where
the legislature itself requires it . In the absence
of such a requirement, the administrative body
can promulgate the regulation in its exclusive
discretion.
But where the regulation is in effect a
settlement of a controversy between specific
parties, it is considered an administrative
adjudication and so will require notice and
hearing.
As for publication, the applicable rule is now
found in Executive Order No. 200 which
provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen
(15) days following the completion of their
publication either in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.
Interpretative regulations and those merely
internal in nature, that is, regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency and not
the public, need not be published.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication
at all since its purpose is to inform the public of
the contents of the law.
The Supreme Court, it would seem, requires
publication of the administrative regulation only
7 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

if it is of general application and penal in
nature.

It must be reasonable.
Like statutes, administrative regulations
promulgated thereunder must not be
unreasonable or arbitrary as to violate due
process.
In Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. Board
of Transportation, the SC declared the
regulation phasing out taxicabs more than 6
years old as reasonable, holding that its
purpose was to promote the convenience and
comfort and protect the safety of the
passengers. (police power)


Penal Regulations
The power to define and punish crime is
exclusively legislative and may not be delegated
to the administrative authorities. While
administrative regulations may have the force
and effect of law, their violation cannot give rise
to criminal prosecution unless the legislature
makes such violation punishable and imposes
the corresponding sanctions.

Special requisites of a valid administrative
regulation with a penal sanction:

(1) The law itself must make violation of the
administrative regulation punishable;
(2) The law itself must impose and specify the
penalty for the violation of the regulation;
(3) The regulation must be published.


Construction and Interpretation
Regulation should be read in harmony with the
statute and not in violation of the authority
conferred on the administrative authorities.
The administrative regulation that contravenes
the statute is, of course, invalid.

Enforcement
It is established that the power to promulgate
administrative regulations carries with it the
implied power to enforce them. This may be
effected through judicial action or through
sanctions that the statute itself may allow the
administrative body to impose.

Amendment or Repeal
Like the statute, the administrative regulation
promulgated thereunder is subject to
amendment or repeal by the authorities that
promulgated them in the first place.
May be changed directly by the legislature.



Chapter 5
The Quasi-Judicial Power


Quasi-Judicial Power
Also known as the administrative agencys
power of adjudication, is the power of the
administrative agency to determine questions
of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply,
in accordance with the standards laid down by
the law itself.

Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction
Under the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction, courts will not determine a controversy
where the issues for resolution demand 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.

Will adherence to the doctrine of primary
administrative jurisdiction result to overlapping with
the functions of regular courts of justice? No. If a case is
such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must
first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort
to the court is had even if the matter may well be within the
latter's proper jurisdiction.
The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide
the court in determining whether it should refrain from
exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency
has determined some question or some aspect of some
question arising in the proceeding before the court.

Quasi-judicial function
Refers to the actions or discretions of public
administrative officers or bodies , that 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.

Requisites to exercise quasi-judicial power
(1) Jurisdiction (must be properly acquired by the
administrative body)
(2) Due process (must be observed in the conduct of
the proceedings)

JURISDICTION
The competence of an office or body to act on a
given matter or decide a certain question.
Without jurisdiction, the determination made
by the administrative bodies are absolutely null
and without any legal effect whatsoever.

8 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

Which entity has the power to confer jurisdiction?
It is the legislature that has the power to confer
jurisdiction upon the administrative body and so limit or
expand its authority.It is a well-settled principle that
unless expressly empowered, administrative agencies
are bereft of quasi-judicial power.
Are the courts of justice vested with jurisdiction over
commissions in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions?
In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions, the
Commission is a co-equal body with the RTC and co-
equal bodies have no power to control the other. (PCGG
v. Pea).
Are there scope and limits in the exercise of quasi-
judicial functions of administrative bodies?
The law may allow some administrative bodies to award
certain kinds of damages while denying the same
power, for no apparent reason, to other administrative
bodies.
For example, the SEC and NLRC are allowed to award
damages virtually to the same extent as a court of
justice. Yet similar authority has not been conferred by
its charter to NTC.
Cases:
Cario v. Commission on Human Rights
Commission on Human Rights has no power to
adjudicate over certain cases like alleged human rights
violations involving civil or political rights. The most that
may be conceded to the Commission in the way of
adjudicative power is that it investigate (fact-finding).
Lastimosa v. Vasquez
The Ombudsmans power to investigate and prosecute
includes the investigation and prosecution of any crime
committed by a public official regardless of whether the
acts or omissions complained of are related to, or
connected with, or arise from the performance of his
official duty.
International Broadcasting Corporation v. Jalandoon
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has
jurisdiction over any intra-corporate controversy which
may have arisen from ownership of shares of stocks.

Syquia v. Board of Power and Water Works
The regulatory board has no jurisdiction over
over petitioner'scontractual relations with respondents-
complainants as her tenants, since petitioner is not
engaged in a public servicenor in the sale of electricity
without permit or franchise. This case gives rise to a
question purely civil in character that is to be adjudged
under the provisions of the Civil Code and not the Public
Service Act.
Manila Electric Company v. Court of Appeals

It is the regular courts power to adjudicate cases
involving violations of rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable.

RCPI v. Board of Communications
The respondent administrative body did not have the
power to impose fines upon petitioner for non-delivery
of telegrams, resulting in mental anguish and extra
expenses to addressees.

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Compnay v. WMC
Resources Intl Pty. Ltd

The Mines and Geosciences Bureau has jurisdiction over
a controversy pertaining to mining rights.

Boiser vs. Court of Appeals
The National Telecommunications Commission is not
authorized to adjudicate breach of contract cases, much
less award moral and exemplary damages.
Davao New Town Devt Corp. v. Commission on the
Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP)

The jurisdiction of COSLAP is confined only to disputes
over lands in which the government has proprietary or
regulatory interest.




National Federation of Labor v. Eisma

The labor arbiterhas the power to award damages
arising from picketing.

Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation v. National
Irrigation Administration

The National Irrigation Administrator (NIA)
Administrator has the power of granting claims. Said
power can necessarily be implied from its express
power of adjudication.

Southern Cross Cement Corp. v. Cement
Manufacturers Assoc. of the Phils.

The Department of Trade and Industry has no intrinsic
right, absent statutory authority, to reverse the findings
of the Tariff Commission.

1. Rules of Procedure
Where an administrative body is expressly granted the
power of adjudication, it is also deemed vested with the
implied power to prescribe the rules to be observed in
the conduct of its proceedings (Angara v. Electoral
Commission).
9 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r


Doctrine of Implication
States that what is implied in the language of a
statute is as much a part of it as that which is
expressed. Thus, the incidental power to
promulgate the rules necessary for the proper
exercise of its exclusive power must be deemed
necessary by implication to be lodged in
administrative bodies such as the Electoral
Commission.

What method of procedure should be used?
When the statute does not require any particular
method of procedure to be followed by an
administrative agency, the agencymay adopt any
reasonable method to carry out its functions (Provident
Tree Farms, Inc. v. Batario, Jr).
However, the rules of the agency must not violate
fundamental rights or encroach upon constitutional
prerogatives(Phil.Lawyers Assoc. v. Agrava).
How should the administrative rules of procedure be
construed?
Administrative rules of procedure should be construed
liberally. In order to:1) to promote their object; and, 2)
to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of their respective claims
and defenses(Agusmin Promotional Enterprises, Inc.v.
CA).
The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied
suppletorily to the rules of procedure of administrative
bodies exercising judicial powers unless otherwise
provided by law or the rules of procedure of the
administrative agency concerned (Samalio v.CA).
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
SC (Constitution Art.8, Sec. 5(5)).
The power of administrative agencies to promulgate
rules of procedure does not or cannot be construed as
allowing it to grant itself jurisdiction since rules of
procedure areremedial in nature and cover only rules
on pleadings and practice(DARAB v.Lubrica).
2. The Subpoena Power
General Rule: The power to issue subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum is not inherent in administrative
bodies. Administrative bodies may summon witnesses
and require the production of evidence only when 1)
duly allowed by law, and 2) in connection with the
matter they are authorized to investigate. Unless
otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of
disobedience, invoke the aid or Regional Trial Court
within whose jurisdiction the contested case falls.
Exception: The power to issue subpoena may be
expressly granted in the charter of the administrative
body.
The Court may punish contumacy or refusal to obey as
contempt.
In Cario v. Commission on Human Rights, the
Supreme Court distinguishedbetween the power to
investigate and the power to adjudicate
Power to Investigate Power to Adjudicate
Means to examine,
explore, inquire, delve or
probe into;
to follow up step by step
by patient inquiry or
observation
Purpose is tofind out, to
learn, obtain information

Means to adjudge,
arbitrate, judge,
determine, resolve, rule
on, settle;
to settle in the exercise
of judicial authority
Purpose is tosettle,
decide or resolve a
controversy involved in
the facts inquired into
by application of the
law

Cases:

Carmelo v. Ramos
Authority to conduct an investigation does not
necessarily mean it can also summon witnesses and
take testimony in the absence of a clear grant of this
power from the legislature

Pascual v.Board of Medical Examiners
The constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination
extends to administrative proceedings which possess a
criminal or penal aspect. The Board of Medical
Examiners cannot compel the person proceeded against
to take the witness stand without his consent.


3. The Contempt Power

Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for
contempt is essentially judicial and cannot be claimed
as an inherent right by the administrative body.

To be validly exercised, it must be expressly conferred
upon the body and, additionally, must be used only in
connection with its quasi-judicial as distinguished from
its purely administrative or routinary functions.

As a rule, where, say, a subpoena of the administrative
body is disregarded, the person summoned may not be
directly discipline by that body. The proper remedy id
for the administrative body to seek assistance of the
courts of justice for the enforcement of its order.

The power to hold in contempt must be exercised not
on the vindictive, but on the preservative principle.

Cases:

Tolentino v. Inciong
A labor officials power to hold a person for contempt
for refusal to comply with its order cannot extend to a
10 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

CFI judge; remedy of administrative official- seek a
dismissal of the case before the court precisely on the
ground that the matter did not fall within the domain of
the powers conferred on it.

Dumarpa v.Dimaporo
The power to hold in contempt must be exercised on
the preservative principle.

Land Bank of the Phils.v. Listana
Quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite
persons for indirect contempt can only do so by
initiating them in the proper RTC.


DUE PROCESS

General Rule: The right to notice and hearing is
essential to due process and its non-observance will as
a rule invalidate the administrative proceedings.
Persons are entitled to be notified of any pending case
affecting their interests so that, if they are minded, they
may claim the right to appear therein and present their
side or refute the position of opposing parties.

When can the administrative agency deny notice and
hearing? (EXP to GR)

The right to notice and hearing can be dispensed
with in the following instances:
(1) Urgency of the immediate action
(2) Tentativeness of the administrative action
(3) The right had previously been offered but not
claimed

Some accepted exceptions:
Summary abatement of a nuisance per
se e.g. mad dog on the loose which
can be killed outright as a matter of
self-defense
Preventive suspension of a public
servant facing administrative charges
Padlocking of filthy restaurants or
theatres showing obscene movies
threat to public health and decency
The cancellation of a passport of a
person sought for criminal prosecution
The summary distraint and levy of
property of a delinquent taxpayer
Replacement of a temporary or acting
appointee

What rights or principles should be observed in
administrative proceedings?

The cardinal rights or principles to be observed in
administrative proceedings are the following:

(1) right to a hearing- includes the right of the
party interested or affected to present his own
case and submit evidence in support thereof;
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
(3) the evidence must have something to support
its decision;
(4) the evidence must be substantial- relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion; Rationale-
to free administrative boards from the
compulsion of technical rules
(5) the decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained
in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected; boards of inquiry- their report and
decision are only advisory
(6) the Court of Industrial Relations or any of its
judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts
of the controversy, and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision;
(7) the Court of Industrial Relations should, in all
controversial questions, render its decision in
such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues
involved and the reasons for the decisions
rendered

It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering
the administrative question be impartial, to ensure a
fair decision.

Cases:

Montemayor v. Bundalian:
The burden is on the complainant to prove by
substantial evidence the allegations in his
complaint.Administrative decisions of the executive
branch of the government must be respected so long as
they are supported by substantial evidence.

Administrative decisions in matters within the
executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on
proof of 1)gross abuse of discretion, 2)fraud, or
3)error of law.

Zambales Chromite v. CA: it is grave abuse of discretion
for a department secretary to review his own decision
while Director of Mines; Remedy:he should ask his
undersecretary to review a decision rendered by him.

Rivera v. CSC: the reviewing officer must be other than
the officer whose decision is under review.

Corona v.CA: the aggrieved party should not be one and
the same official upon whose lap the complaint he has
filed may eventually fall on appeal;
nemopotestessesimul actor etjudex- No man can be at
once a litigant and judge.

Caoile v. Vivo: the law does not require another notice
and hearing for a review of the decision of the board of
special inquiry on the basis of the evidence previously
presented.
11 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r


Marvel Bldg.v. Ople: no denial of due process if
petitioners received notice of the scheduled
investigation the day before said date of the hearing or
investigation

Alvarez v.Ople: there was denial where the decision
was rendered against a person who was not a party to
or even notified of the proceedings taken before a labor
arbiter.

Globe v. NTC: hearing is essential before a fine may be
imposed.

Pefianco v. Moral: administrative resolution- basis for
any further remedies that a respondent in an
administrative case might wish to pursue.

Sec. of Justice v. Lantin: Reqts of Quasi-Judicial
Proceeding- 1) taking and evaluation of evidence, 2)
determining facts based on the evidence presented, 3)
rendering an order or decision supported by the facts
proved.

Phil.Merchant Marine School Inc. v. CA: findings of fact
of administrative departments are generally accorded
respect, if not finality, by the courts.

American Tobacco Co.v. Dir. of Patents: the officer who
makes the determination must consider and appraise
the evidence which justifies them.

Valladolid v.Inciong: no denial of the right to due
process on the basis of position papers submitted by
the parties.

GMCR, Inc.v. Bell Telecomm. Phils. Inc.: the vote alone
of the Chairman of Commission is not sufficient to
legally render an NTC order, resolution or decision.
Quiambao v.CA: where opportunity to be heard either
through oral arguments or through pleadings is
accorded, there is no denial of due process.

Autencio v. Manara: appeal/motion reconsideration-
remedy to cure defects in procedural process

Boyboy v.Yabut: Gen. Rule- trial-type proceeding is not
required; Exception- where the findings are necessarily
to be based on the credibility of the witnesses or
complaints.

ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS:
(1) there must be a court or tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the
matter before it;
(2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the
person of the defendant or property which is
the subject of the proceedings;
(3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to
be heard; and
(4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful
hearing (NAPOCOR v.Chiong).

Javier v. COMELEC

The judge must not only be impartial but must also
appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the
parties that his decision will be just.

ERB v. CA
Complainants have the burden of proving by substantial
evidence the allegations in their complaints.

Administrative Appeals and Review

General Rule: An appeal from a final decision of the
administrative agency may be taken to the department
head, whose decision may further be brought to the
regular courts of justice, in accordance with the
procedure specified by law.
Exception: Unless otherwise provided by law or
executive order


Enforcement of Decision

How can appeal be made?
In the absence of any statute providing for the
enforcement of an administrative determination, the
same cannot be enforced except possibly by appeal to
the force of public opinion.
It is an administrative penalty which administrative
officers are empowered to impose without criminal
prosecutions (CAB vs. PAL).

A writ of mandamuslies to enforce a ministerial duty or
the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust or station
(San Luis v. CA).

Sanctions for Enforcement of decisions:
(1) Revocation of or refusal to renew
licenses
(2) Destruction of unlawful articles e.g.
pornographic materials and narcotic drugs or
marijuana
(3) Summary closure of stores found
engaged in profiteering or hoarding
(4) Refusal to grant clearances
(5) issuance of cease and desist orders
to public utility companies from
charging excessive rates
(6) Detention and deportation of aliens
(7) Imposition of fines

Res Judicata

General Rule: The decisions and orders of
administrative agencies rendered pursuant to their
quasi-judicial authority, have, upon their finality, the
force and binding effect of a final judgment within the
purview of the doctrine res judicata (Brillantes v.
Catro).

12 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

Exceptions:
(1) when it is repugnant to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy(Republic
v. CA)
(2) labor relations proceedings(Nasipit Lumber
Company, Inc. v. NLRC)
(3) exercise of administrative powers,
(4) judgments based on prohibited or null and void
contracts.

An administrative officer may revoke,
repeal or abrogate the acts or previous
rulings of his predecessor in office if he
becomes satisfied that a different
construction should be given.


Chapter 6
Judicial Review

General Rule: Administrative decisions are not
reviewable by courts of justice. (Non appealable to
courts of justice)

Exceptions:
(1) If the Constitution or the law permits it.
(2) If the issues to be reviewed involve questions
of law.

General Rule: Administrative decisions are not reviewable
by courts of justice. (Non appealable to courts of justice)
Why? --- The right to appeal is not a constitutional right nor is
it embraced in the right to be heard as guaranteed by due
process
--- It is a recognized principle that courts of justice will
generally not interfere in the executive and administrative
matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of
government agencies.
(eg. grant of licenses, permits, leases or the approval,
rejection or revocations of applications thereof)
Effect --- The administrative decision may be validly rendered
final and non appealable at the administrative level without
allowing the aggrieved party a final resort to the courts of
justice.
Exceptions:
(1) If the Constitution or the law permits it.
1


1
Constitution --- In the case of Constitutional Commissions (COMELEC, COA,
CSC), unless otherwise provided in this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy
thereof ART. IX, A, Section 7
Note:
-Petition for review (appeal) shall be perfected within 15 days
from the receipt of the final administrative decision.
-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 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his
appeal.
-It shall be filed in the court specified by the statute or in its
absence, in any court of competent jurisdiction.
-It shall be supported by substantial evidence except when
specially provided otherwise by law.
-In the absence of specific rules governing appeals from
administrative decisions, the special civil action
2
s and other
remedies provided for in the Rules of Court may be availed in
proper cases by an aggrieved party.
(2) If the issues to be reviewed involve questions of
law.
Extent --- There can be appeal even without legislative
permission (kahit walang batas na nagsasabi na pwede) or
even against legislative prohibition (kahit sabihin pa ng batas
na di pwede mag-appeal)
>> Why?


Administrative Code --- Generally provides that an appeal/petition for
review from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency
within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the
reviewing court a petition for review of the order.
RA 5434 decisions of the Social Security Commission and the Civil
Aeronautics Board, etc. appealable to the Court of Appeals
-- An appeal from a final award, order or decision of the Patent
Office shall be taken by filling with the Patent Office and with the CA a notice
of appeal within 15 days from the notice of such award, order or ruling.
PD 612 --- The aggrieved party in proceedings taken before the Insurance
Commissioner may appeal from its decisions in the manner as provided by
law and by the rules of court for appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals to the
Court of Appeals.
Interim Rules and Guidelines implementing Sec. 9 (3) BP Blg. 129 the CA
may review final decisions, orders, awards or resolutions of regional trial
courts and all of quasi-judicial bodies except the COMELEC, the COA, the
Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines
and by the Central Board of Assessments.
Other appeals prescribed by special laws eg. RA No. 1125 providing for
appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, or any
provincial or city board of assessment appeals.

2
Habeas corpus, quo warranto, prohibition, mandamus, etc...
13 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

- The court cannot be deprived of their inherent
authority to decide questions of law, initially or by
way of review of administrative decisions.

- It is generally understood that, as to administrative
agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative
power, there is an underlying power in the courts to
scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of
law or jurisdiction even though no right of review is
given by statute.
Note:
- The Supreme Court may review the decisions of the Office of
the President on questions of law and jurisdiction when
properly raised. (No judicial supremacy in this case. WHY? ---
It is the SCs duty enjoined by the Constitution as part of the
system of checks and balances.)
Methods of review are prescribed by:
(1) The Constitution
(2) Statutes
(3) Rules of Court
Methods of Review may be:
(1) Specific
(2) General

Requisites before there can be judicial
review/appeal through certiorari or
prohibition of determinations of
administrative officers or agencies

(1) Before certiorari or prohibition may be
entertained, it must be shown that all the
administrative remedies prescribed by law or
ordinance have been exhausted.

(2) The administrative decision may be annulled or
set aside only upon a clear showing that the
administrative official or tribunal has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion.


2 Doctrines that must be considered in connection
with the judicial review of administrative decisions

(1) Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
(2) Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
If the case is such that its determination
requires the expertise, specialized skills and
knowledge of the proper administrative bodies
because technical matters or intricate questions
of facts are involved, then relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding
before a remedy will be supplied by the courts
even though the matter is within the proper
jurisdiction of a court.
When does it apply? It applies where a claim is
originally cognizable in the courts, and comes
into play whenever enforcement of the claim
requires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, have been placed within the
special competence of an administrative body.
What is the effect when this doctrine is
applied? The judicial process is suspended
pending referral of such issues to the
administrative body for its review. (Note: The
application of the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not call for the dismissal of the
case. It need only be suspended until after
matters within the competence of the
administrative bodies are threshed out and
determined.)

Why is the observance of this doctrine
important?
(1) To ensure the consistency in administrative
findings and also because of the conceded
expertise of the administrative body as
compared to the judicial tribunal in
resolving administrative questions in
general.
(2) Compliance to the doctrine of separation of
powers.

Calls for the determination of administrative
questions
3
by administrative agencies rather
than courts of justice.

Does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself
authority to resolve a controversy the
jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence.
*It has been the jurisprudential trend to apply the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases involving
matters that demand the special competence of
administrative agencies.

3
Ordinarily are questions of fact or technical matters which only specialized
administrative boards or commissions with special knowledge and
experience are capable of hearing and deciding.
14 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

*In accordance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
the administrative process must continue up to the
highest level before resort to judicial tribunals may be
sought.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
An administrative decision must first be
appealed to the administrative superiors up to
the highest level before it may be elevated to a
court of justice for review.
Recourse through court action cannot prosper
until after all such administrative remedies
would have first been exhausted. If a remedy is
available within the administrative machinery,
this should be resorted to before resort can be
made to the courts.
Underlying principle of this doctrine:
Presumption that the administrative agency, if
afforded a complete chance to pass upon the
matter, will decide the same correctly.

Reasons for the doctrine: (law, comity, and
convenience)
(1) The administrative superiors, if given the
opportunity can correct the errors
committed by their subordinates.
(2) Courts should as much as possible refrain
from disturbing the findings of
administrative bodies in deference to the
doctrine of separation of powers.
(3) On practical grounds, it is best that the
courts, which are burdened enough as they
are with judicial cases, should not be
saddled with the review of administrative
cases.
(4) Judicial review of administrative cases is
usually effected through special civil actions
of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition,
which are available only if there is no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

General Rule: Application of the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies.
Exceptions:
(1) When there is a violation of due process.
(2) When the issue involved is purely legal.
4


4
E.g. Want of authority; interpretation of the scope of ones constitutional
right
(3) When the administrative action is patently
illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
(4) When there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency concerned.
(5) When there is irreparable injury
5
.
(6) When the respondent is a department secretary
whose acts as an alter ego of the President
bears the implied and assumed approval of the
latter.
(7) When to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be unreasonable (as when the
claim involved is small).
(8) When strong public interest is involved.
(9) When the issues submitted have become moot
and academic.
(10) When it would amount to the nullification of
the claim.
(11) When the subject matter is a private land in
land case proceedings.
(12) When the rule does not provide a plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy.
(13) When there are circumstances indicating the
urgency of judicial intervention.
Effect of premature resort to the courts: The case is
susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. (The
only effect of noncompliance with this rule is that it will
deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a
ground for a motion to dismiss. Failure to exhaust
administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction
of the court.)
When must non exhaustion of administrative
remedies be raised or invoked? It must be raised at
the earliest possible time, even before filing the answer
to the complaint or pleading asserting the claim, by a
motion to dismiss.
What is the effect when it is not seasonably
invoked? This ground for dismissal (exhaustion of
administrative remedies) would be deemed waived and
the court may proceed to hear the case.
*The court has the discretion to require the observance
of the doctrine and may, if it sees fit, dispense with it
and proceed with the disposition of the case.
*A motion for reconsideration must be filed before the
special civil action for certiorari may be availed of.


5
The doctrine is relaxed when its application may cause great and
irreparable damage which cannot otherwise be prevented except by taking
opportune appropriate court action.
15 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

Q: Is there a need to appeal the decision of a Cabinet
member to the President before it may be brought to a
court of justice?
A: No, appeal to the President need not be resorted to,
recourse to the courts could be had immediately. The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does
not apply when the respondent is a department
secretary who acts, as an alter ego of the President,
bears the implied approval of the latter, unless actually
disapproved by him.
2 Kinds of questions reviewable by the courts of
justice
(1) Questions of fact
(2) Questions of law
Questions of fact
Review of the administrative decision lies in the
discretion of the legislature, which may or may
not permit it as it sees fit. Denial of this remedy
does not violate due process for the right to
appeal is generally not deemed embraced in the
right to a hearing.
Findings of fact are generally accorded great
respect, if not finality, by the courts by reason
of the special knowledge and expertise of said
administrative agencies over matters falling
under their jurisdiction.
The findings of fact of an administrative agency
must be respected so long as they are
supported by substantial evidence, even if such
evidence might not be overwhelming or even
preponderant.
General Rule: Findings of fact by an administrative
board or official, following a hearing, are binding upon
the courts and will not be disturbed.
Exceptions: (When review is justified)
When there has been:
(1) denial of due process
(2) mistake or error of law
(3) lack of jurisdiction
(4) fraud
(5) collusion
(6) arbitrary action in the administrative
proceeding
(7) an irregular procedure in the determination of
factual findings
(8) palpable errors committed
(9) manifest abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, and
capriciousness
6

*Decisions of administrative agencies which are
declared final by law are not exempt from judicial
review when so warranted. Factual findings of
administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set
aside where they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon
proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.
Questions of law
Administrative bodies may be allowed to
resolve questions of law in the exercise of their
quasi-judicial function as an incident of their
primary power of regulation. However, their
determination on this matter is only tentative at
best and, whenever necessary, may be
reviewed and reversed by the courts in proper
cases.
The administrative decision may be appealed to
the courts of justice independently of legislative
permission or even against legislative
prohibition. The reason is that the judiciary
cannot be deprived of its inherent power to
review all decisions on questions of law,
whether made initially by lower courts and
more so by an administrative body only
7
.
*When an administrative agency renders an opinionor
issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-
existing law and the administrative is at best advisory
for it is the courts that finally determine what the law
means.
*The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should
be given more weight that the interpretation by the
agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer.


6
Exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily without
regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion.
7
The decision of legal questions is an essentially judicial power that may not
be withheld or withdrawn from the courts by legislation as the power is
inherent in the judiciary.