Admin Review 2011

Administrative Law (2011)

By Asst. Ombudsman Rodolfo M. Elman, CESO lll
Ateneo de Davao Law School

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW refers to branch of public

law which fixes the organization of government,
determines the competence of administrative bodies
who execute the law, and indicates to the individual
the rights made available to him if there is such
violation.
Exception to the PRINCIPLE of SEPARATION OF
POWERS:

Authority is given to administrative bodies to

promulgate rules. The nature of this promulgation is
an exercise of a quasi-legislative function.

Government of the Republic of the

Philippines (GRP) refers to the corporate
government entity through which the functions of
the government are exercised as an attribute of
sovereignty, and in this are included those arms
through which such political authority is made
effective whether they be provincial, municipal or
other form local government.

National Government refers to the central

government consisting of the 3 branches or
department of the government

CENTRAL BANK VS. CA, ABLAZA (April 22,

1975)
FACTS: A construction of an office was awarded to
Ablaza by Central Bank. No formal contract was
executed but the work commenced. However, after
one month, Central Bank terminated the
construction. Trial court ruled in favor of Ablaza.

In order to avoid unwarranted delegation, a law is

enacted by the legislative to provide for safeguards
against arbitrariness, capriciousness in the exercise
of duties by administrative authorities.
Such law must be complete - complete in its terms
when the powers are completely defined and the
manner of the exercise of such powers is provided.

National Government cannot dispense funds
without the requisite certification of availability. In
this case, there was none. Hence, Central Bank
contends that there was no perfected contract of
sale due to the absence of such requisite.

TYPES of ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

1. Perform a business function of the government
(BIR, CSC)

2. Perform a business service which is not an
indispensable function of the government but is
deemed to assist the public (LRT, PNR, NFA,
NHA)

5. Adjudicate individual rights in the concept of

social justice (NLRC, POEA)

HELD: The Central Bank is an entity separate and

distinct from the National Government. "National
Government" refers only to the central government,
consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the government, as distinguished
from local governments and other governmental
entities and is not synonymous, therefore, with the
terms The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines" or "Philippine Government", which are
the expressions broad enough to include not only
the central government but also the provincial and
municipal governments, chartered cities and other
government-controlled corporations or agencies, like
the Central Bank.

6. Grant privileges (GSIS, SSS, PAO)

Hence, there was a perfected contract of sale in
which Central Bank is liable.

7. Make the government a private party (COA)

Are GOCCs embraced in the term GRP?

3. Regulate the activities of individuals (SEC, NTC)

4. Exercise of police power (Bureau of Patents,
PRC)

Bacani vs. NACOCO

Republic of the Philippines (or GRP) as

distinguished from National Government

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

National Coconut Corporation is a corporate

personality and separate and distinct from the
GRP

Admin Review 2011

Where the law has given expertise to an agency on
a certain matter/area, whatever issues or
controversies arising therefrom should not be
brought before the court but rather before the
administrative tribunal vested with such expertise.

UP is a separate entity from the GRP

Cases:

Instrumentality as defined in EO 292

Sagip Kalikasan vs. Paderanga, 06/19/08
-

Any agency of the National government not

integrated with in the department framework,
vested with special functions or jurisdiction
by law & enjoying operational autonomy,
usually thru a charter.

Facts: DENR authorities taking in its possession

illegally cut logs and timber. In fact, this timber
products were already in the custodialegis of DENR
authorities. The supposed owner of this illegally cut
lumber Edma filed a complaint for replevin with the
RTC presided by judge Paderanga.

MIAA vs. CA, 495 SCRA 592

Status of the Manila International Airport Authority:
not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the National
Government
vested with corporate powers to
perform efficiently its governmental functions

RULING: Court should have dismissed this replevin

suit. Applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
DENR is responsible for enforcement of forestry
laws. Forest products in custodialegis cannot be
subject of replevin before the court. Respondents
taking cognizance of replevin suit constitutes
ignorance of the law. Enforcement of forestry laws,
rules and regulation, PD 705 is within DENRs
jurisdiction.

ISA vs. CA, 249 SCRA 539

The Iron and Steel Autority (ISA) is a nonincorporated agency or instrumentality of the GRP.
When its statutory term expires, the powers, duties &
functions as well as the assets & liabilities of that
agency revert back and are reassumed by the RP, in
the absence of statutory provision specifying some
other disposition

Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, 598 SCRA 268

Exclusive jurisdiction and Authority of Bureau of
Immigration to decide deportation case and in the
process,to determine the incidental issue of
citizenship whenever raised by the deportee.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Courts cannot and will not determine a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of
an admin tribunal, especially where the question
demands exercise of sound admin discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience &
services of the admin tribunal to determine technical
matters of fact.

Exception: When may the Bureau of Immigration not

take cognizance of this matter and refer this issue to
courts?

When does it apply?

2. When the evidence submitted by the deportee is

conclusive of his citizenship.

1. When the court itself believes that there is

substantial evidence supporting claim of
citizenship by the alleged alien.

The doctrine applies only whenever it is the court

and the administrative agency which have
concurrent jurisdiction. The doctrine is inapplicable
where there is concurrence of jurisdiction between
two disciplining authorities over a case.

SO the general rule here is whenever the issue of

citizenship is raised, it should be within the
jurisdiction of the courts. Court will have to time and
again look into this issue. This matter is not anymore
within the authority ofLara
the Bureau
of immigration. 1
:-) | 4-manresa

Reasons for this doctrine

Take note:



If the issue is about the competence of two
disciplining authorities, example between the CSC
or Dept of Education, this doctrine of primary
jurisdiction is not applicable.

Remember: Even administrative tribunals may be

empowered to award damages. This used to be the
sole function of the court, but again, on the basis of
this so-called 4th branch of the government, the
Congress now has empowered so many
administrative authorities with the power to award
damages.

So this doctrine of primary jurisdiction is applicable

only whenever it is the court and administrative
tribunal which have the concurrent jurisdiction. It
does not apply when it is between two administrative
authorities exercising concurrent jurisdiction
because in the latter case, what applies is the rule
that whichever take cognizance first is to the
exclusion of the other equally competent tribunal.

Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 231

Nothing in PD 957 vests HLURB with jurisdiction to
impose criminal penalties. What the law provides is
authority of HLURB to impose administrative fines or
penalties under Sec. 38.

Again, we mentioned that the administrative agency

exists on the basis of the law, it has its charter and
this charter provides for the guidelines, the manner
by which it has to implement the law given to it.

So what is needed is the recommendation by the

HLURB of this criminal violation and it should be
lodged before the prosecutors office for the
determination of probable cause and thereafter
before the court.

Rule: Laws conferring powers to administrative

agencies must be liberally construed in favor of the
exercise of power by the administrative authorities
on the basis of the law giving them such power.

Home Bankers vs. CA, 547 SCRA 167

HELD: the issue of declaring the mortgage of a lot
void and the validity or annulment of the foreclosure
sale if it involves any of the issues provided under
SEC 1 of PD 1344 is properly within the jurisdiction
of the HLURB and not before the courts.

(HLURB) Housing and Land Use Regulatory

Board (PD 957/PD 1344)
Claims/cases over which the HLURB has exclusive
jurisdiction (Sec.1, PD 1344):

Admin Review 2011

Take note: Not every claim or allegation by the party

of relationship between the developer and the buyer
will it automatically confer jurisdiction to HLURB.

1. Unsound real estate business practices by

the housing developer or owner;
2. Claims involving refund and any other
claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium
unit buyer against the project owner, developer,
dealer, broker or salesman; and
3. Cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by
buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or
salesman.

The essential element here to determine whether it

is a matter falling within the courts or HLURB is in
the nature of the action as so provided in Section 1
of PD 1344.
Cadimas vs. Carrion, 567 SCRA 103
Facts: Cadimas alleged that she entered into a
contract to sell and purchase a town house but here,
the respondent Carrion, breached or violated the
contract when she transferred this townhouse to a
third party without the consent of petitioner Cadimas.

CT Torres vs. Hibionada, 191 SCRA 268

The complaint for specific performance w/ damages,
filed by the lot buyer against the developer,
regarding delivery of Certificate of Title filed w/ RTC
should be dismissed because it comes under
HLURB jurisdiction.

RULING: SC held that this is not a matter to be

resolved by HLURB.
Mere claim of relationship
the owner 1
and
Lara :-)between
| 4-manresa
buyer confers no automatic jurisdiction in HLURB.
The decisive element is the nature of the action as



enumerated in Sec. 1 of PD 1344. Here, petitioner
claims that she entered into a contract to sell a
townhouse but Carrion breached the contract when
she transferred it to a 3rd party w/o petitioners
consent. The complaint for cancellation of contract &
recovery of possession & ownership of townhouse is
w/in jurisdiction of the court.

Admin Review 2011

units. Clearly, this is within the ambit of the authority
of HLURB.
The contractor had unpaid billings with the
developer. The developer did not pay the contractor
of the amounts corresponding to the
accomplishment of the constructed condo units. So
he filed a case with the RTC for the collection of
sums of money.

ISSUE: Would the filing of these suits between and

among the same parties constituties forum
shopping?

Arranza vs. BF Homes, 333 SCRA 800

Facts: BF Homes developer was already under
receivership. Nonetheless, the residents of BF
Homes filed a complaint for specific performance
because of the failure of the developer to comply
with its obligations under the law and that is to
provide the specific homeowners needs such as
water, security and open spaces. The developer
argued that since it was already placed under
receivership, the HLURB does not have anymore
the authority but rather, the matter should be lodged
before SEC.

RULING: There is no forum shopping where

contractor sues before HLURB to enforce Contract
to Purchase and also files another suit in court to
collect money regarding unpaid billings from
Construction Contract.The two actions are separate,
distinct and independent.
Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799)
Prior to the amendment of PD 902-A by RA 8799,
take note that the SEC had the jurisdiction to decide
cases involving among others controversies arising
out of intra corporate or partnership dispute.

RULING: Clearly, HLURB & not SEC has jurisdiction

over complaint againstrespondent even if
respondent is under receivership. It is because, the
main action here is not monetary or pecuniary but
rather it is the enforcement of
the statutory and
contractual obligations of the housing developer.

NOW: RA 8799 amended PD 902-A and transferred

jurisdiction of SEC over intra-corporate cases to the
Raegional Trial Court.

The fact the fact that there was already a

receivership issue, it cannot divest HLURB of its
jurisdiction. In fact, the appointment of a receiver will
not dissolve a corporation but it will only strengthen
the rights of the parties.

SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp., 567 SCRA

365
HELD: Whenever there is a violation of the
Securities Regulation Code (SRC) and this
regulation involves penal sanctions or possible
criminal charge, this should not be immediately filed
before the prosecutors office. Applying the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction, such violation of the securities
regulation code, it being a specialized dispute
should first be determined or look into by the SEC. It
is only after such finding by the SEC of probable
violation of the code involving criminal sanction, it
should be referred to the DOJ for Preliminary
investigation.

As in this case, even in such situation that there was

pecuniary liability, it is only incidental to the main
cause of action which is the enforcement of statutory
and contractual obligation of the developer.
Whatever monetary claim that may be adjudged
here will be submitted to the board of receivers.
Marina Properties Corp. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 273
Facts: This matter is raised because of the filing of
suits by the constractor. One suit he filed was before
the HLURB for the enforcement of the contract to
purchase consuminium units. So even if he was the
contractor, he entered into a contract for purchase of

A criminal charge for violation of the code is a

specialized dispute that should first be looked into by
Lara :-) | 4-manresa
1
the SEC under doctrine of primary jurisdiction and if
it finds probable cause, it should refer to the DOJ for
PI . SEC investigation interrupts prescriptive period

Admin Review 2011

because the investigation by the SEC is akin to the

conduct of PI by the DOJ.

Toll Regulatory Board (PD 1112)

So, the action or discretion of the administrative

tribunal to investigate facts and draw conclusions
from them as basis for their official action & to
exercise discretion of a judicial nature, this must be
expressly conferred by the law.

In the matter of a claim by the expressway user,

applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
theRemedy of the interested expressway user who
finds the toll rate adjustments to be onerous,
oppressive and exorbitant is to file a petition for
review of the adjusted toll rates with Toll Regulatory
Board.

Quasi-Judicial Power involves:

a)

Under PD 1112, it is the TRB that has the

competence to look into these question of facts
requiring the knowledge , formula and the factors
that ought to be considered in determining the
assailed rates.

c) rendering an order or decision supported by the

facts proved.
Meaning, if the power given to such administrative
agency is the power to investigate but not the power
to apply the law, it does not mean that such
administrative tribunal already possesses quasi
judicial power, it only means that it possesses fact
finding or investigating power. So there must be
authority under the law to investigate facts, draw
conclusions from the facts gathered and apply the
law.

Two kinds of powers of Administrative Bodies:

Rule-making power (Quasi-Legislative)

essential for the admin agency to enable it
to carry out effectively the manadate given
to it under the law.

Power to adjudicate (Quasi-Judicial)

power to decide controversies.

This involves sound administrative discretion of the

tribunal partaking in the nature of judicial in
character.

Quasi-Judicial Power

This is not always given. It is essential that

the law itself must expressly provide for this
authority to the admin agency.

PCGG vs. Judge Pena, 02/07/89

In the absence of an express conferment of

this power by law, it simply means that such
admin agency is merely exercising a
regulatory function.

If expressly given, take note that this power

is merely incident to its main function. It is
given only as an aid for the effective
discharge of its principal function which is
regulatory- to administer.

taking and evaluating evidence as so gathered

by them;

b) determining facts based upon the evidence

presented (gathered or submitted); and

TRB decision is appealable w/in 10 days from the

promulgation thereof to the Office of President.

Because if the sole power of this tribunal is

to adjudicate, it is no longer an
administrative authority but rather a court.

Facts: PCGG issued freeze orders over the assets

of two export garment companies and these
companies filed a case in court for injunction and in
fact, RTC issued restraining orders against the
PCGG to prevent them from carrying out such freeze
orders.
ISSUE: Is it still within the competence of the RTC to
issue the TRO?
RULING: SC held that PCGG also exercises a
quasi-judicial power. And in the exercise of this quasi
judicial authority, PCGG is a co-equal body of RTC.
Laralatter
:-) | 4-manresa
It being co-equal, the
cannot restrain 1the
former.

Admin Review 2011

when it reviews findings of the prosecutor regarding
presence of probable cause.
In the conduct of PI, it does not finally dispose of the
case. The objective in the conduct of PI is to
determine existence of probable cause for the
purpose of filing a case in court.

Cases:
Sanado vs. CA, 356 SCRA 546
RULING:
Action of POEA is one of discretion,
whether to grant, deny, suspend, or revoke a license
of any private placement agency is an exercise of a
quasi-judicial. In fact, the law empowers the POEA,
to on its own initiative, may conduct the necessary
proceeding or investigation to determine whether
there has been a violation of the terms and
conditions of their license or permit set to the
placement agency.

When do you say that it is a quasi-judicial

proceeding?

When the proceeding ends with the final

disposition of the case.

UP Board of Regents vs. CA, 313 SCRA 404

Facts: There was this Indian national who was
enrolled in the doctorate program at UP. She
presented her thesis and thereafter passed the
board exam so she was given a doctorate degree.
Subsequently, it was discovered that she plagiarized
her thesis.

Eastern Telecom vs. Intl Communication Corp.,

435 SCRA 55

Facts: NTC issued a provisional authority CPCN to

the Intl Comm. Corp. over the objection of Eastern
Telecom. The reason of Eastern was that the area
which is the subject of this permit granted by the
NTC to ICC was the same area already made
subject of permit given by the NTC to Eastern.
RULING: SC upheld the Power of National
Telecommunications Commission to issue Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity for the
installation, operation & maintenance of
communication facilities & services, including
authority to determine the area of operation of
applicants for telecommunication services. This
power cannot even be usurped/reserved by the
DOTC.

ISSUE: WON the state university has the power to

withdraw what it had earlier granted.
RULING: YES. UP Board is empowered to withdraw
conferment of degree founded on fraud committed
by the grantee. The state university has the right to
defend itself from any serious threat to its integrity.
So the pursuit of Academic Excellence is the
concern of the university and therefore it should be
empowered to take measures. If the university has
the power who should be admitted, it follows
therefore that it has also has the power to determine
who should be conferred as its graduates.
Carino vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483; 2001 BQ

No abuse of discretion committed by NTC in the light

of the fact that NTC simply took into account the
technical and financial capabilities of ICC. It is also
consistent with the policy of healthy competition.
NTC may in fact allow two or more carriers to serve
the same area. It is another sign of an utmost
discretion in the exercise of quasi judicial power by
the NTC again as long as there is no abuse of
authority.

Facts: Several public school teachers participated in

the strike sometime in Sept 1990 and they were
ordered to go back to their classes but they refuse.
And so the DECS Sec commenced administrative
proceedings against these public school teachers of
Ramon Magsaysay School.
On the other hand, these public school teachers filed
a case against DECS Sec before the Commission
on Human Rights alleging violation of their human
rights. CHR issuedLara
an :-)order
directing DECS
| 4-manresa
1
Secretary to answer the charge.

Balangauan vs. CA, 562 CRA 186

A preliminary Investigation is not a quasi-judicial
proceeding, and DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency



RULING: The Constitution grants to CHR the power
to investigate all forms of human rights violations
involving civil & political rights, but that is the sole
authority given to them. It does not include power to
adjudicate or rule on the issues submitted or
gathered by them with finality. The Fact-finding being
undertaken by the CHR is not adjudication.

If the complaint has been filed by several parties, the

certification signed by counsel alone is defective,
unless clothed with special authority.
Cases:
HLC Construction vs. Emily Homes Homeowners
Assn., 411 SCRA 504

SC said that the CHR does not have the power to

conduct administrative proceeding against the
DECS secretary because of the limitation of the
power of the CHR.

General rule: When the complaint is filed by several

complainant , the certificate of non forum shopping
must be signed by all plaintiffs in a case.
Exception: The signature of only one of them is
sufficient it is highly impractical to require all of the
complainants to sign. In order not to defeat the ends
of justice, one of them may act as representative
and sign the certificate provided that they share a
common interest in the subject matter of the case or
filed the case as a collective raising only one
common cause of action for the plaintiffs.

Rule Against Forum Shopping

Forum Shopping

The act of the party against whom an adverse

judgment has been rendered in one forum and
seeking another redress in another forum other
than by appeal or certiorari. Same issue has
already been determined. (RES JUDICATA)

Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 719

F a c t s : D e p u t y C o m m i s s i o n e r Va l e r a w a s
preventively suspended by the special prosecutor
and so he even pending the motion for
reconsideration of this preventive suspension,
respondent Valera filed in court a petition
questioning the validity of the preventive
suspension.

The act of a person of instituting two or more

actions or proceedings grounded on the same
cause of action. There is a pending issue raised
before a competent tribunal and in the hope of
getting a favorable action from another tribunal,
the same action is now being raised before that
new tribunal.(LITIS PENDENCIA)

Admin Review 2011

HELD: This requirement of exhaustion and the need

to attach a certificate of Non-Forum Shopping may
be overlooked by the Appellate court if it finds merit
or compelling reason for non-compliance with the
rule.

Applies equally to administrative proceedings.

The reason is that, what is being raised by Valera is

the authority of the special prosecutor to issue a
preventive suspension. In fact in this case, the SC
ruled that the special prosecutor under the
Ombudsman does not have the authority to issue a
preventive suspension.

Test of violation:
a) where the elements of litis pendenti are present;
or
b) where final judgment in one case will amount to
res judicata in the other.

Take Note: The requirement to file certificate of nonforum shopping, although not jurisdictional, is
mandatory; if not complied, summary dismissal is
warranted not by reason of lack of jurisdiction but
because of failure to comply with a mandatory
requirement.

Montemayor vs. Bundalian, 405 SCRA 264

Facts: There was thisLara
case:-)
filed
against the Regional
| 4-manresa
1
Director of
DPWHMontemayor
filed in the
Ombudsman. Subsequently this case was dismissed



by the Ombudsman. And it was argued by
Montemayor that the dismissal of this case against
him by the Ombudsman operates as res judicata
and thus the administrative filed against him before
the PAGC ought to be dismissed.

Admin Review 2011

Requirements for validity of rules:

1. The rules promulgated must be germane to the
objects and purposes of the law;

RULING: OMB decision dismissing criminal case of

DPWH RD Montemayor does not operate as res
judicata in the PAGC admin case against him for
unexplained wealth. The case before the
ombudsman was for violation of the RA 3019
whereas the admin case against him before the
PAGC is in connection with the unexplained wealth.
It consists of different issues.

2. Must conform to the standards that the law
provides;

3. Must relate solely to carry out the mandate of

the provisions of the law; and

Cabarrus vs. Bernas, 279 SCRA 388

4. Must always be consistent or in conformity with

the law itself.

HELD: Rule is not applicable to agency not

exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function. In this
case, a civil case was filed in court for damages
arising from fraud. Despite the pendency of the civil
case, this will not preclude the plaintiff from
instituting a criminal action with the investigating
agency like the NBI for a fact finding investigation or
the DOJ Prosecutor because again, the conduct of
preliminary investigation is not in the performance of
a quasi judicial function.

Take Note:
a. If issued in excess of rule making authority, no
binding effect upon the courts. The most is that,
it can only be treated as mere administrative
interpretations of the law which carries only a
persuasive effect.

Velasquez vs. Hernandez, 437 SCRA 358

b. Mere absence of implementing rules cannot

effectively invalidate provisions of law, where a
reasonable construction may be given. When
the law provides for reasonable standards, it can
be given effect despite absence of implementing
rules otherwise, it will be giving more power to
administrative tribunal.

Facts: Two cases were instituted. An administrative

case was filed before the CSC, the other one was
filed before the Ombudsman for violation of R A
3019.
RULING: No violation of the rule on forum shopping
because the cases do not raise identical causes of
action. One is administrative while the other is
criminal.

c.

Quasi-Legislative Power

The authority to promulagate rules and

regulations in order to carry out the mandate
of the law.

Statute authorizing Pres. to suspend operation

of law upon happening of act or an event is
VALID. It is not an undue delegation because
what is being done is for the president to merely
comply with what is directed to it under the lawthat is to suspend the operation of a law upon
the happening of an act or event. Also, so long
as there are sufficient standards to guide the
president in carrying the mandate of the law.

Cases:

This is the main or principal function of any

administrative tribunal.

This grant of quasi legislative power is a

relaxation of principle of separation as an

exception to the rule on Non Delegation of

Legislative functions.

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

Phil. Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner

of Internal Revenue, 302 SCRA 241

In the matter of PRC resolution prohibiting

attendance in accountancy review classes and
receiving materials from them a few days before the
C PA e x a m . S C h e l d t h a t t h i s c i r c u l a r i s
unconstitutional because it infringes the right of the
examinees to liberty. It also violated the right of the
schools to academic freedom. The PRC has no
authority to dictate schools on how they should
prepare for the CPA examinations.

Facts: Revenue Memo Circular 7-85 issued by the

BIR authorities changing the prescriptive period. The
NIRC provides for a prscriptive period of two year
but the circular extended it to 10 yrs.
RULING: Rev. Memo Circular 7-85 inconsistent with
the NIRC. It is repugnant with the law. It will not vest
the taxpayer with vested rights if based on an
erroneous application by administrative authorities of
a law.

Confederacion National vs. Quisumbing, 26

January 1988

Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141

RULING: DECS Order phasing out Spanish subject
and in lieu thereof, the inclusion of Arabic does not
violate due process because it was made applicable
to all similarly situated.

RULINGL: Administrative Order 308 providing for

adoption of a national computerized identification
reference system is unconstitutional because it
violates particular zones of privacy. Such
interference in the privacy cannot be made merely
under an administrative issuance. It must be
embodied in a law.

Sand vs. Abad Santos Educational Inst., 18 July

1980

Board of Examiners for Nurses issued a regulation

for period inspection of Nursing Schools. This
regulation further provides that such students who
failed to comply with the new requirements cannot
take the examination.

Dadole vs. COA, 393 SCRA 272

Local Budget Circular of DBM setting a maximum
limit to additional allowances to be given by LGU to
national government officials assigned in their areas
should not exceed one thousand pesos. It imposes a
maximum amount that ought to be received by the
national government.

RULING: SC upheld the validity of this issuance by

the Board of Examiners because it is a valid
exercise of police power.
British American Tobacco vs. Camacho, 562
SCRA 519

RULING: SC held that there is no law providing for a

maximum amount to be given. The law does not
provide a ceiling which would serve as a limitation
of amount that can be given to the national
government.

RULING: Revenue issuance empowering the BIR to

reclassify cigarette brands is void. The authority to
reclassify cigarette brands does not belong to the
BIR Commissioner. This authority is vested with the
Legislature.

LGC, SEC 458 was the basis of DBM however, a

careful scrutiny of such law provides that such
amount may only be given if the finances of the LGU
sufficiently allows it. Meaning, it is up to the
discretion of the LGU to determine the amount to be
given as allowance depending on its finances.
Clearly, the circular issued by DBM is not consistent
with the law itself. The DBM in this case clearly
overstepped in its power of supervision over LGUs
by imposing a prohibition that is not seen with what
the law declares.
Lupangco vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848

Admin Review 2011

Romulo & Mabanta vs. HDMF, 333 SCRA 777

Facts: Home Development Mutual Fund through its

Board of trustee issued amendments to the rules
and regulations interpreting the law of HDMF. The
law provides that the employer shall be exempt from
this requirement for coverage should it provide
provident or retirement or housing benefits. In 1995,
the board issued amendments providing for both
:-) | 4-manresa
1
provident/retirement Lara
and housing
benefits. In 1996,
the Board again issued this time abolishing the
exemption.



RULING: The Board does not have the authority to
amend the law itself. Not a valid exercise of quasi
legislative authority.

Admin Review 2011

institution of higher learning as contemplated under
the law.
KMU vs. Director General, 487 SCRA 623

Republic vs. Migrino, 189 SCRA 300

Facts: GMA issued EO 420 directing all government
agencies including GOCCs to adopt a unified multipurpose ID system. The reason for this Order were
to reduce cost brought about by the multiple ID
cards required by so many government agencies
and also to ensure convenience for the transacting
public.

Facts: In the matter of the Creation of new AFP AntiGraft Board through PCGG issuance to hear and
decide cases involving members of the AFP that are
investigated for alleged unexplained wealth.
HELD: The law of PCGG only provides that they can
investigate on any alleged ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses and their cronies. The authority of PCGG
is limited only to the associates of the marcoses. So
here, under the issuanceof Commissioner Salonga
of PCGG, the jurisdiction of the PCGG law was
extended in including the AFP members even if they
have no connection with the Marcoses. Hence it was
an invalid issuance because it went beyond the
coverage of the law.

ISSUE: whether EO 420 usurp legislative power?

RULING: There is no usurpation of legislative power.
Take note, what distinguishes this case from that of
Ople vs. Torres is that this issuance applies only to
the offices in the executive branch. The president
has the power of control over all government offices
in the executive branch. In fact, one way of effecting
this mechanism for this unified ID system is for the
head of this offices to enter into a memorandum of
agreement to have a uniform ID system or, for the
president herself to direct the offices under the
executive branch to have a uniform Id system. Still
within his power of control.

SEC vs. Interport Resources Corp., 567 SCRA

354
Facts: There was this law being implemented by the
SEC however, SEC only issued the implementing
rules only after 14 years.

Fiscal Autonomy

HELD: Mere absence of implementing rules cannot

invalidate law. It will not suspend the effectivity of the
law where there are sufficient standards to guide the
SEC in carrying out the law. Full Disclosure Rules
promulgated by SEC on 07/24/96 while Revised
Securities Act approved on 02/23/82

Review Center vs. Exec. Secretary, 583 SCRA

428

Facts: By reason of the leackage in 2006 nursing

exams, then president GMA issuedEO 566
authorizing the CHED to supervise the operation of
all review centers. The law of CHED is RA 7722, the
coverage of CHED under the law is limited to public
and private institutions of higher learning.

RULING: Sc said that nowhere in the law of CHED

which provides for the authority of review centers.
Clearly, in issuing this executive order 566, the
president exceeded her authority. It enlarge the
jurisdiction of CHED. A review center is not an

Entails freedom from outside control and

limitations, other than those provided by law.

A grant of whole flexibility in the allocation and

utilization of resources wherein the wisdom and
the needs of these institutions may require from
time to time.

It recognizes the power to levy, assess and

collect fees, fix compensation rates not
exceeding the highest rates authorized by law
and allocate and disburse such sums as may be
provided by law or prescribe by them in the
discharge of their functions;

Formulate and implement their organizational

structure and compensation of their personnel.

It is a constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable

Lara :-)of| 4-manresa
by membership. (Comm
Human Rights) 1



E n t i t i e s g i v e n F i s c a l A u t o n o m y : C FA G Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group

Admin Review 2011

although it has been admitted as member of the
CFAG. It is a constitutional grant but not obtainable
by mere membership.

1. Judiciary
CHREA vs. CHR, 496 SCRA 227 (on MR)
2. CSC
RULING: CHR has a certain degree of fiscal
autonomy thru the privilege of having its approved
annual appropriations released automatically and
regularly, but not fiscal autonomy in its extensive
sense like that exercise by the rest members of
CFAG such as using their appropriations to effect
changes in their organizational structure in terms of
position, classification, grant of allowances &
utilizing their savings for certain official purposes.

3. COA
4. Comelec
5. Ombudsman.

CSC vs. DBM, 22 July 2005

Cases:

Facts: This case arose from the withholding by the

DBM of the amount of 5.8M. For the general
appropriations of 2002, the CSC was given an
allocation of 285.7M. Out of this amount, there was
a shortage of 5.8M which the DBM refused to
release to the CSC. So an action for mandamus was
instituted by the CSC to compel the release of this
withheld amount.

CHREA vs. CHR, 444 SCRA 300

Facts: The commission on human rights employees
association moved to upgrade and create certain
offices in the commission such as the financial office
and public affairs office. The justification made by
the CHR was that it is part of the CFAG.

RULING: Funds for agencies enjoying fiscal

autonomy should be automatically & regularly
released, and not conditioned on the no report, no
release DBM policy. This condition is repugnant to
the concept of fiscal autonomy because said rule
should not be subject to any restriction.

RULING: While members of the CFAG are

authorized to formulate & implement organizational
structure of their respective offices & determine the
compensation of their personnel, such authority is
not absolute & must be exercised w/in the
parameters of the Unified Position Classification and
Compensation System administered by the DBM.
Such scheme must first be submitted and approved
by the DBM.

The withholding of P5.8M by the DBM, allegedly

due to revenue shortfall, is unconstitutional. Even
granting there is revenue shortfall, these agencies
should be given priority in the release of such
appropriation as soon as it becomes available.

Thus, CHR cannot lawfully implement an upgrading

& reclassification of positions w/o DBM imprimatur.
This rules equally applies to the rest of the legitimate
members of the CFAG.

The exception is where total revenue collections

are so low that they are not sufficient to cover the
total appropriations for all entities vested with fiscal
autonomy.

The upgrading/creation of Finance Management

Office and Public Affairs Office in CHR were not
authorized by any law or even by the General
Appropriations Act. It can only be done on the basis
of a law or by authority under the office of the
president.

Re: Clarifying & Strengthening the

Organizational Structure & Administrative Set-up
of the Philippine Judicial Academy, 481 SCRA 1

The CHR which is also a creation of the constitution

is not part of this group given with fiscal autonomy

Lara :-)
4-manresa
Facts: This is in the matter
of |the
creation by the1SC
thru a resolution creating positions of Chief Judicial
Staff Officer (SG 25) & Supervising Judicial Staff



Officer (SG 23). Upon submission of this resolution
by SC to DBM, DBM disapproved their resolutions in
the sense that it downgraded these positions.

Admin Review 2011

RULING: A subpoena may be enforced only if the
inquiry is within the authority of the agency as so
given to it under the law and the demand for this
production or testimony of witnesses is not too
indefinite and the information sought is reasonably
relevant.

HELD: the DBM has no authority to downgrade such

SC positions/salary grades. The DBM authority
extends only to calling the attention of the SC on
its perceived erroneous application of budgetary
laws & rules. The SC may then amend or modify its
resolution as its discretion may dictate under the
law. Here, DBM encroached on SCs fiscal
autonomy and supervision of court personnel,
hence, unconstitutional

Power to punish contempt

It should be clearly defined and granted by law and
its penalty determined.
EO 292 states that unless otherwise provided by
law, the agency may, in case of disobedience,
invoke the aid of RTC to punish contumacy or
refusal as contempt.

Power to issue subpoena

RULE: Admin agencies have no inherent power to
require attendance of witnesses.

Take Note: This power to punish for contempt is

limited only to making effective the power to elicit
testimony and it cannot be exercised in furtherance
of administrative functions; this limitation derives
from its nature being inherently judicial & the need to
preserve order in judicial proceedings.

The power to issue subpoena ducestecum and ad

testificandum must have its basis under the law.
Is there such law? Yes.
Sec. 13& 37, Ch. 3, Bk. Vll, EO 292: Admin bodies
are now authorized to require attendance of
witnesses, in any contested case, the investigative
or quasi judicial authorities have the power to
compel production of records, books, documents
upon request of a party either before or during
hearing and upon showing of general relevance.
Authority to take testimony or receive evidence
includes the power to administer oath, summon
witnesses and issue subpoenas.

Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, 06 April 1995

Administrative subpoena vs Judicial subpoena

HELD: RA 6770 gives the Office of the Ombudsman

the power to punish for contempt in accordance w/
Rules of Court. Petitioners argument that they
cannot be held liable for contempt because their
refusal arose out of an administrative rather than
judicial proceeding before the OMB is w/o merit.
The PI of a case, of w/c the filing of information is a
part, is quasi-judicial in character. Whether
petitioners refusal to follow the OMB orders
constitutes defiance is for the Ombudsman to
determine after appropriate hearing not before the
Court but before the ombudsman.

Facts: In the matter of the refusal of the prosecutors

office in Cebu to carry out the directive of then
Ombudsman Velasquez to file the information in
court but the prosecutor refused. The prosecutor
alleged that they cannot be punished for contempt
by the ombudsman because the refusal did not arise
from judicial authority of the ombudsman but rather
in its administrative authority.

Administrative subpoena has the objective of

discovering evidence on the basis of which a charge
may be filed if the evidence so discovered justifies
such finding of the administrative case whereas
Judicial subpoena has the objective of proving a
pending charge.
Administrative subpoena, the purpose is to gather
evidence to support or sustain a charge that may be
filed before the competent tribunal whereas, Judicial
subpoena, the intention here is to prove an already
charge before the court.

Implementing Rules or Interpretative Policies

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99

Admin bodies have authority to interpret at first

instance the laws they are to execute. This is

Admin Review 2011

important in order for them to effectively carry the

mandate given to them.

(3) whether it was a reasonable regulation under the

due process test

Nonetheless, Interpretations are not binding upon

courts but have force/ effect of law and entitled to
great respect.

SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 453

Facts: Under the 1990 circular issued by the SEC it
removed the ceiling on filing fees which were
provided under the 1986 Circular. What happened
here was that this 1990 circular was not published
either in OG or in newspaper. What the SEC did was
to have this 1999 Circular filed before the UP law
center but only after 14 years from the issuance of
this circular. What SEC did here was that SEC
computed the filing fee on the basis of the 1990
circular resulting in the imposition of an assessment
of 12M filing fee to be paid by PICOP. Whereas
under the 1986 circular, it would take only 100
thousand.

The general rule or policy is for the court to sustain

the decision of administrative bodies on basis of
separation of powers and their presumed
knowledgeability and expertise of admin authorities.
But a different rule may be had if there is abuse of
power by these admin bodies.
Abrogation of previous acts or rulings of
predecessor in office - whatever interpretations
made by the predecessor may be abrogated by the
successor. The latter cannot be bound by it.
Requisites for validity of admin rules and
regulations: (Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446)

3. must be reasonable;

RULING: SEC violated due process when it denied

the public prior knowledge of SEC 1990 Circular
removing the filing fee ceilings provided for in SEC
1986 Circular. What was held to be effective here is
the 1986 circular and not the 1990 because the
latter did not become effective by reason of its non
publication.

4. must be published.

Cases

Art. 2, Civil COde as repealed by EO 200:

Phil. International Trading vs. COA, 309 SCRA

177

1. must be issued under authority of laws;

2. must be within the scope & purview of the law;

What need to be published?

DBM Circular no. 10 completely disallowing payment

of allowances to government employees is of no
force & effect due to absence of publication. Even if
DBM subsequently reissued & submitted for
publication in OG does not cure the defect because
this publication is a prior condition. It does not
retroact to the time of disallowance made by the
COA of these items.

a. W h e n t h e i s s u a n c e s a r e o f g e n e r a l
applicability, publication is necessary as a
requirement of due process.

b. When the purpose of the rule promulgated is to
carry out the objectives of the law.

Philsa International Placement Corp. vs. Labor

Secretary, 356 SCRA 174

Eastern Telecom vs. ICC, 481 SCRA 163

SC laid down the Guidelines in resolving disputes
regarding interpretation by an agency of its rules:

Facts: The revised administrative code (E.O 292)

requires that apart from the publication in the official
gazette, whenever the rule or regulation imposes
administrative sanctions on the basis of the
conferment of this authority under the law to the
Lara this
:-) | 4-manresa
administrative tribunal,
imposition must 1be
submitted and filed in the National Adminitrative

(1) whether the delegation of power to promulgate

rules was valid;
(2) whether the regulation was w/in that delegation;



Register of the UP law Center. This is an added
requirement.

HELD: The 1978 NTC Rules shall apply in this case

in the grant of provisional authority to BayanTel
despite filing of 1993 Revised Rules with UP Law
Center. The 1993 NTC RR should have been
published in OG or newspaper of general circulation
before it can take effect.

HELD: POEA Circular not filed with the National

Administrative Register cannot be used as basis for
imposition of administrative sanctions; a requisite
under Secs. 3 & 4, BkVll, EO 292. Rules imposing a
penalty as authorized by the law itself must be filed
& registered w/UP Law Center.

SC also held that there is no provision under EO 292

that provides that it is the publication in the National
Administrative Register that is essential. What is
required under the law that it should be published in
the OG or newspaper of general circulation.The
National Admin Register is merely a bulletin of
codified rules that is being furnished in important
government offices.

Honasan vs. DOJ Panel, 13 April 2004

Facts: Honasan was investigated by a panel created
by the DOJ Secretary. He complained that the
conduct of preliminary investigation by this panel is
not valid because of non compliance of the joint
circular entered into by the office of the ombudsman
and DOJ. Honasan also claimed that it should be the
ombudsman who should investigate and not the
DOJ

SEC vs. GMA Network, 575 SCRA 113

The SEC in supposedly carrying out the provisions
of the Securities Regulation Code issued SEC
Circular # 1 imposing a filing fee of 1/10 of 1% of AC
plus 20% thereof for amendments extending
corporate existence. SC held thatit needs to be
published as it implements mandate of RA 3531 and
it affects public.

RULING: OMB-DOJ Joint Circular 95-01 is merely

an internal circular between the DOJ & the OMB,
outlining the extent authority & responsibilities
among prosecutors in conduct of PI. Said circular
does not regulate the conduct of persons or the
public in general, nor does it contain any penal
provision or prescribe a mandatory act. Hence, it
need not be published.

Requirement of Admin Due Process

1. Impartial tribunal;
Fabella vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256

SC also sustained the competence of the DOJ in the

conduct of PI even without the participation of the
ombudsman.

Facts: In thematter Sec 9 of the Magna Carta Law

which provides that There is here created an
INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE that ought to hear
the administrative complaint against the public
school teacher.

What need not be published?

1.

Admin Review 2011

Construction or Interpretation of laws and the

regulations and those merely internal in nature,
i.e regulating only the personnel of the agency
and not the public.

This investigating committee so created consist of:

a. District Superintended as chief; Members:

2. LOIs issued by administrative superiors

concerning rules to be followed by subordinates

b. district supervisor; and

Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 317

c. Representative of the public school teachers

association.

Facts: In the matter of the rules that should apply in

granting provisional authority to operate.
Considering that the 1993 rules issued by the NTC
were never published in the official gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation but was submitted
to the National administrative Register of the UP
Law Center.

In this case, there was non compliance of the

representation of the investigating committee
coming from the teachers association.

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

HELD: SC ruled that there was failure to conform

with the requirement of due process because it

Admin Review 2011

cannot be said that the investigating committee is

impartial in the light of the absence of this
representative coming from the teachers
association.

authority. In fact it is a case of concurrent

jurisdiction.

2. Due notice and hearing or opportunity to be

heard;

Facts: Barangay Captain Laxina was charge with

grave misconduct with the Ombudsman. He fully and
actively participated and filed the necessary
pleading. He did not disclosed that there is a
pending administrative proceeding of the same
nature against him before the Sanggunian. When
the decision came out adverse to him, he was
dismissed in service. And then he claim for the first
time that there is a similar proceeding involving
same case and pleaded violation of due processs.

Laxina vs. OMB, 471 SCRA 544

Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143

Facts: In the matter of Emin occupying the position
of Non-Formal education supervisor of the Dept of
Education. He engaged in some irregular activity, he
issued false certificate of eligibility to public school
teachers and so he was charged with grave
misconduct and dishonesty before the CSC.

HELD: SC held that there is no violation because he

actively participated in the proceeding before the
ombudsman.

CSC directed him to file an answer and he filed the

necessary pleading and position papers. There was
active participation by petitioner Emin. When the
decision came out adverse to him, because he
ordered to be dismissed by the CSC, Emin now
claims for the first time that it should be the
investigating committee of the DepEd that ought to
take cognizance of the case filed against him and
not the CSC.

3. Procedure consistent w/essentials of fair trial;

4.

Proceedings should be conducted to give

opportunity for court to determine whether
applicable rule of law & procedure were
observed.

Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 666

RULING: The SC ruled, there was no violation of

due process because he was given sufficient
opportunity to be heard. In fact, he actively
participated so he cannot belatedly claim for the first
time that it should be the investigating committee of
Dep Ed that ought to take cognizance of the admin
case filed against him.
Alcala vs. School Principal Villar, 11/18/03

Facts: In the matter of the resolutions issued by the

Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) approving provisional
rates of public utilities even without a hearing and
those who sign the resolution meaning the directors
of TRB did not even attend personally the hearing.
The Hearing was only conducted by the hearing
officers of TRB and not the directors.

Same ruling with EMIN case.

ISSUE: is the procedure valid?

OMB vs. Masing, 542 SCRA 253

HELD: Yes! Approval in a TRB resolution of

provisional rates of public utilities without hearing is
valid even if TRB Directors did not attend personally
the hearing because by its nature it is merely
provisional or temporary, it is still subject to hearing
on its merits. If after the hearing on its merits and
after full deliberation, the resolution may be
amended either increasing or decreasing the rates
of public utilities or it may also adopt the same rates

RULING: The Dept of Education does not have the

exclusive disciplinary authority over public school
teachers. SEC 9 of the Magna Carta Act RA 7640,
this provision does not confer exclusive authority to
the department of education nor does it prescribe an
exclusive procedure in the conduct of administrative
investigation. What is does prescribe is a specific
procedure to be followed by the dept of educ in the
conduct of their proceedings. SO this simply applies
to them. This has nothing to do with exclusive

DOH Secretary vs. Camposano,

457 SCRA 440
Lara :-) | 4-manresa
1



Facts: SEC of DOH copied the dispositive portion of
its subordinated. There was no factual finding and
legal assessment made in the resolution issued by
the DOH secretary.

Admin Review 2011

as the decision is based on substantial evidence and
the matter is within the competence of the tribunal.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE such facts and
circumstances sufficient to justify a conclusion.

RULING: Disciplining authority must not only rely

with the conclusion of its subordinates. There must
be an exercise by the disciplining authority of its
prerogative and it requires prior independent
consideration of law and facts, & not simply rely on
dispositive portion of PCAGC Reso. Her finding
should contain factual finding & legal assessment.

Garcia vs. Molina, 627 SCRA 540

GSIS as complainant, prosecutor and judge.SC
sustain the competence of GSIS to perform this
multiple functions.
CSC vs. Albao, 472 SCRA 548

Malinao vs. Reyes, 255 SCRA 616

Facts: Respondent Albao was charged with
dishonesty in connection with the falsification of his
appointment records. The commission on its own
initiated the conduct of investigation. And this
investigation is not under Section 47. It was done on
the basis of Section 12.
So there are two
proceedings that are actually recognized under the
CSC laws.

Decision prepared and signed by an SP Member

only is not the decision of the SP itself. The decision
to be made binding and in order to be considered as
the decision of SP itself, it must be decided and
signed by at least a majority of the members thereof.
Due Process in Admin Proceedings
What it includes:
1)

Right to actual or constructive notice to the

institution of proceedings;

2)

Real opportunity to be heard personally or with

counsel, for the respondent to present evidence
and to know whatever evidence is their against
him;

3)

Impartial tribunal vested with competent

jurisdiction; and

4)

Finding by said tribunal w/c is supported by

substantial evidence made known to parties
affected. (meaning the decision must be based
on the evidence on record and not on evidence
not disclosed to the parties.)

RULING: CSC action under Sec. 12 gives power to

the commission to motopropio take action on any
matter that involves the integrity of the CSC under
Sec. 47 of EO 292 which is the ordinary proceeding
to discipline a bona fide member of the system.

Zambales Mining vs. CA, 94 SCRA 261
Principle: The Reviewing Officer of the case on
appeal should not be the same person whose
decision is the subject of review.
Facts: Director Mines issued a decision adverse to
Zambales Mining and disapproved the proposed
location of their mining. Zambales appealed the
decision. In the meantime, the Director of Mines got
promoted and became the Secretary of Natural
Resources. So he is the same officer reviewing his
own decision.

Garcia vs. Molina, 627 SCRA 541

A decision rendered in disregard of the fundamental
right to due process is void for lack of jurisdiction.
Example is there is lack of notice.

RULING: SC ruled that this violates due process.

HE should not have ruled in this case. He should
have inhibited himself.

Cruz vs. CSC, 370 SCRA 650

CSC acted as investigator, complainant, prosecutor
and judge all at the same time. Does it mean
violation of due process? NO! Certainly not. As long

Singson vs. NLRC, 274

358
LaraSCRA
:-) | 4-manresa

Facts: Labor Arbiter Aquino decided on a case and

later such decision was appealed to the NLRC to



which Aquino became subsequently one of the
Commissioners reviewing his own decision.

Admin Review 2011

Facts: There was an administrative case filed
against Lucas. He was an employee of the Dept of
Agriculture and he was with DA for twenty long years
but he committed a fatal mistake of touching the
hand of a female co-employee. And so this woman
was aggrieved and filed an admin case against
Lucas for simple misconduct. After due proceedings,
Lucas was found guilty and the Secretary, upon
recommendation of the investigating committee,
issued this decision imposing a penalty of 1 month
suspension. The woman was still aggrieved and so
after the denial of her motion for recon, she went to
CSC. The CSC set aside the imposition of 1 month
and 1 day suspension and imposed a penalty of
dismissal to service upon finding that Lucas was
guilty of grave misconduct.

HELD: Again, there is here a violation of due

process even if later on there was this motion for
reconsideration filed and the MR was acted upon by
the two other commissioners without the
participation of Commissioner Aquino. This does not
cure the fatal defect.
Tejano vs. Ombudsman, 462 SCRA 568
HELD: There was grave abuse of authority on the
part of Ombudsman Disierto when he participated in
the reinvestigation of this case despite the fact in his
capacity as special prosecutor he participated in the
conduct of the investigation. (Prior to being an
ombudsman he was a special prosecutor first) and
this resulted to the filing of the case against
petitioner. What happened here was that on MR, he
became the ombudsman and then he participated in
resolving the Appeal. So SC said that there was
violation of due process. He should have inhibited
himself. He should have allowed his deputies to rule
on this Appeal.

ISSUE: Is the decision of the CSC valid?

HELD: Sc ruled that Respondent must be duly
informed of charge against him & he cannot be
convicted of a crime with w/c he was not charged.
Remember that the charge he was informed to is
only simple misconduct , so he cannot be convicted
of a charge in which he was not charged since he
was convicted on appeal with CSC for grave
misconduct. SC also took note of his long time
service with the government and this was his first
offense.

Even if there was a motion of reconsideration of this

disapproval of the recommendation to dismiss the
case against Tejano and it was not anymore acted
by him but by his successor, SC said this did not
cure the fatal defect.

Essence of due process is the opportunity to be

heard or seek a reconsideration of the ruling
complained of.

Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 319

Facts: NTC issued an order to revive an archived
application of BayanTel. And this was done even
without notice tooppositor Express Telecom. Is
there denial of Due process? SC said NO. There is
not denial of procedural due process because the
oppositor will have its full day in court during the full
adversarial proceedings. This is simply an order to
revive the application and it is not an order on the
merits of the case itself.

Procedural vs. substantive due process

CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA 560

Facts: There was this administrative case filed

against an LTO employee Ruvivar and subsequently
when a decision came out, the decision reprimanded
her. Take note that a REPRIMAND is a sanction just
like suspension or dismissal from service. But
ADMONITION is notLara
or WARNING,
they are 1not
:-) | 4-manresa
administrative sanctions.

Procedural due process refers to the manner by

which the law is enforced whereas, substantial due
process requires that the law itself and not merely
the procedures by which the law would be enforced
is fair , reasonable and just.
Ruivivar vs. OMB., 565 SCRA 325

RULE: Administrative proceedings are not exempt

from fundamental procedural principle such as the
right to due process in the conduct of the
investigation.



Ruvivar complained that there was violation of her
right to due process because she was not given the
opportunity to controvert the charge, in fact she was
not given copies of the affidavits of the witnesses of
the complainant. So the affidavit of the complainants
witnesses were not furnished to Ruvivar.

Admin Review 2011

Also, if the respondent elects not to have a formal
investigation, he can opt to just submit pleadings on
the basis of which a decision may fairly be drawn.
UP Board vs. CA, 313 SCRA 404
One may be heard not solely by verbal/oral
presentation but also thru pleadings in admin
proceedings. Technical rules of procedure &
evidence are not strictly applied (Concerned MWSS
Officials vs. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502). Due process
in admin context does not require trial-type
proceedings so long as he was given ample
opportunity to be heard not necessarily thru oral
presentation but may be thru the pleadings filed.

HELd: There is no denial of due process when on

her filing an MR from the decision reprimanding her,
she was directed to file her supplemental affidavit
and in fact, in such order, the affidavit of
complainants witnesses were attached. So she was
given a copy of these affidavits for the first time upon
her filing of this motion for reconsideration. Hence,
she was given opportunity to be heard but she
refused to file pleading as directed to her during MR
proceedings.

Gaoiran vs. Alcala, 444 SCRA 420

Take note: The term COMPLAINT refers to the
actual charge to which the person complained of
must answer. He is required to answer and in fact in
his answer, he must also indicate whether he elects
a formal investigation. That is provided under EO
292 and PD 807 or the CSC Law.

Service of summons or order on OSG

NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 707
Rule: The notice is an important ingredient in the
due process proceedings. It is not a mere
technicality or a trivial matter in administrative
proceddings.

When the complaint is unverified, this does not

constitute the complaint referred to in the CSC law,
because what is contemplated by the law is a
verified complaint to which he is directed to file an
answer. It will trigger a formal investigation.

Facts: NPC was represented by the OSG in the

proceddings before the NLRC. An order was issued
by the Labor Arbiter, the order should be furnish on
the OSG. If the order is adverse to the NPC but such
order was furnished to the deputized special
attorney, it is not binding to the OSG. For the
purpose of compluting the period in which to file the
proper pleading, it will only commmence to run from
the time of actual receipt by the OSG and not that
from the deputized special attorney. It is because the
latter has no legal authority to decide whether an
appeal ahould be taken.

In this case, the unverified complaint filed w/ CHED

is not the complaint w/in purview of EO 292. It
merely commences Fact Finding Investigation. It is
only when on the basis of the evidence gathered by
the Legal Office of CHED, in which case, the legal
office of CHED becomes the nominal complainant, a
formal charge may be instituted. The formal charge
of the CHED Legal Office againstGaoiran constituted
the complaint as contemplated by law.
Take note: Administrative bodies are not under
obligation to dismiss unverified complaints. If on the
basis of a fair perusal of the unverified complaint,
there is sufficient basis to proceed further with the
investigation, that would trigger a conduct of fact
finding investigation.

Lincoln Gerard, Inc. vs. NLRC, 7/23/90

Where a party appears by counsel in an action in
court or administrative body, all notices required to
be given must be served to the counsel and not to
the client. Notice to counsel
to client 1
Lara :-)is| notice
4-manresa
PPA vs. Sargasso Const., 435 SCRA 512



Notice to any one of the several counsels on record
is notice to all and such notice starts the time
running for appeal despite that the other counsel on
record has not received a copy of the decision.

Admin Review 2011

Right to counsel during custodial investigation: not
applicable in administrative proceedings because
the purpose sought in the latter is to preserve the
integrity of the public office, and not to determine
involvement in a crime.

The right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of

due process; it is merely a statutory privilege,
exercisable only in the manner & in accordance with
law (Tiatco vs. CSC, 216 SCRA 749).

Negligence of counsel binds the client (Maquilan

vs. Maquilan, 524 SCRA 166); the only exception is
when negligence of counsel is gross, reckless &
inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in
court (Razon vs. Pp, 525 SCRA 284).

Assistance of counsel is not an absolute

requirement in administrative inquiry (Ampong vs.
CSC, 563 SCRA 294).

Perez vs. Abiera, 62 SCRA 302

A party in an admin inquiry may or may not be

assisted by counsel, regardless of nature of charges
& of respondents capacity to represent himself, and
no duty rests on such body to furnish the person
investigated w/counsel (Sebastian vs.
Garchitorena, 397 Phil.519)

If subsequent to the filing of the admin case against

the erring public officer, if for some reason, there is
termination of his official relations either by
resignation/abandonemnt or retirement. It does not
mean that the admin case ought to be automatically
dismissed.

Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125

Jurisdiction acquired at time of filing is not lost by

cessation in office of respondent during pendency of
his admin case. The body retains its jurisdiction
either to pronounce him innocent of the charges or
declare him guilty thereof.

Facts: Petitioner Lumiqued is the Regional Director

of DAR who was charged with so many offenses like
malversation, falsification etc. So there was this
committee created by then President Ramos under
the DOJ and later on proceedings were commenced
against Luniqued. He fully participated by filing
pleadings and answer etc. without the assistance of
counsel. But when an adverse decision came out he
was dismissed from service, he complained that he
has the right to counsel but was not represented by
one during the admin proceedings. He complained
for the first time.

Cardinal Primary Rights in Administrative

Proceedings
1. Right to a hearing;
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. Decision must have something to support itself;
4. Evidence on which decision is based must be
substantial;

RULING: Sc held that assistance of a lawyer in

administrative proceeding is not an essential right
nor an absolute requirement. Respondent has option
of engaging the services of counsel or not. Right to
counsel is not imperative because admin inquiry is
conducted merely to determine whether there are
facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring
public officers, with the purpose of maintaining the
dignity of the government service. So a party may
not be represented by a counsel in admin
proceedings regardless of the nature of the charge
and the capacity of the respondent to defend
himself. There is even no obligation on the part of
the admin bodies to furnish respondent the services
counsel if he cannot afford one.

5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence

presented at hearing, or at least contained in the
record & disclosed to the parties affected;
6. Board or judge must act on its own independent
consideration of the law & facts of the
controversy, & not simply accept views of th
subordinate in arriving at a decision.
Instances of admin determination where notice
and hearing are not necessary.

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

1. Summary abatement of nuisance per se



2. Cancellation of passport by DFA

3. On the basis of separation of powers which

enjoins upon the judiciary a policy of nonintervention with matters coming primarily within
the expertise and competence of administrative
authorities in accordance with the law. (RF:
Primary Jurisdiction)

3. Summary proceedings of distraint& levy of

property of delinquent taxpayer
4. Preventive suspension

5. Grant of provisional authority for increased

rates, or to engage in particular line of business
(PLDT vs. NTC, 190 SCRA 717).

A direct action in court w/o prior exhaustion of

administrative remedies, when required, is
premature, warranting its dismissal on a motion to
dismiss grounded on lack of cause of action. The
failure to observe the doctrine does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court.

Right vs. SELF-INCRIMINATION

Available in all kinds of proceedings whether

civil, administrative or criminal.

In some instances, the court may, without the other

party invoking this ground, take cognizance of the
case, more so if the party takes part, or does not file
a motion to dismiss grounded under this rule. So it
may be waived if it fails to invoke.

Available only to natural persons and not to a

juridical person.

Reason: Exclusion of juridical persons from no selfincriminatory rule is the need for admin bodies
tasked by legislature to see to the compliance with
law and public policy to ensure enforcement of laws.
-

Holy Spirit Homeowners Assn. vs. Defensor, 497

SCRA 582
If what is in issue is the validity of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations promulgated by the National
Governemnt Center Administration Committee
pursuant to its Quasi-Legislative power expressly
authorized by under R.A 9207 on the ground that the
rules promulgated by them are not germane to the
object and purpose of the law. Certainly, it is not the
tribunal that has to act on this issue but rather the
Court.

Thus, an administrative agency may require an

organization to furnish it with records of books
although these may incriminate such
organization

Doctrine of EXHAUSTION of ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES

Doctrine is applicable only to acts in the

performance of a quasi-judicial, not rule-making,
function.

Before a party can be allowed to seek judicial

intervention, he is to exhaust all means of
administrative redress available under the law.
If the law provides for this administrative step, the
rule is here is that he must first avail of this
administrative mode before going to judicial
intervention.

Sunshine Transp. Vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 51

Take note: This doctrine has to be availed of
whenever there is a provision directing the party to
avail of this remedy first ex: Motion for
Reconsideration.

3 reasons for the doctrine:

1. To enable the administrative tribunal to correct
whatever error it may have committed in the
process of adjudication;

If the law does not provide for this remedy (MR), in

such a situation, there is no need to apply this
doctrine of exhaustion of Admin remedies.

EX: IRR of NLRC provides that an MR should first

be applied before the
filing
a special action1 of
Lara
:-) |of4-manresa
Certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of.

2. To prevent unnecessary recourse or premature

action to courts;

Admin Review 2011



HELD: In this case, an MR must first be filed under
NLRC Rules of Procedure before special civil action
for certiorari under 65 of Rules of Court may be
availed of .

Merida Water Dist. vs. Bacarro, 567 SCRA 204

Increase in water rates by Local Water District after
the conduct of a public hearing may be the subject
of review & approval by Local Water Utilities
Administration. It follows therefore that the rates that
are the subject of the public hearing should be the
same rates that were the subject now of review by
LWUA. After LWUA reviews the rate established by a
LWD, a water concessionaire may appeal the same
to the National Water Resources Board whose
decision may then be appealed to the Office of the
President.

Ta s k F o r c e S a g i p K a l i k a s a n v s . J u d g e
Paderanga,
19 June 2008

Facts: This involves the action by this aggrieved

party whose timber was the subject of confiscation
proceedings by the DENR. Edma resorted to the
filing of a petition for Mandamus before the court to
recover the forestry products which were already
under the custody of DENR authorities.

Delta Ventures Resources vs. Cabato, 327 SCRA

522

HELD: SC ruled that this is not hteproper remedy.

Certainly, this matters already taken cognizance of
by the DENR should likewise be submitted to the
same administrative authority. Action to recover
forestry products under DENR custody shall be
directed to that agency and not the courts.

Third party claim before the court was for recovery of

possession & injunction, but it was in essence an
action questioning the validity of levy in the labor
caseviz-a-viz the alias writ of execution including the
acts done by the labor arbiter and the deputy sheriff.
Hence, the third party claim is but an incident of the
labor case. So, it is a matter within the authority of
the administrative tribunal rather than an action
before the RTC.

Revised Forestry Code: Sec. 8, PD 705 as

amended states that :
1.All actions and decisions of the Bureau of Forest
Development (now Land Management Bureau)
Director are subject to review by the DENR
Secretary;

Also, one other issue here is on the authority of the

RTC to issue restraining order to prevent the
execution of the decision of the labor arbiter. SC
said the RTC being a co-equal body of the NLRC
does not have jurisdiction to issue a restraining
order to prevent the execution of the labor
authorities.

2.The decisions of DENR Secretary are appealable

to the President; and
3.Courts cannot review the decisions of the DENR
Secretary except thru a special civil action for
certiorari or prohibition.

Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 717

Distinction bet. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

& Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies

Facts: An administrative case was against

Commissioner Valera before the office of the
Ombudsman and the special prosecutor issued a
preventive suspension. Indeed consistent with the
implementing rules of the ombudsman, the
aggrieved party filed an MR questioning the
propriety of this preventive suspension order.

Both doctrines deal with the proper relationships

between courts and administrative bodies.
Exhaustion applies where the claim is originally
cognizable in the first instance by the administrative
body alone, while primary jurisdiction applies where
the case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
court & administrative agency but the case requires
determination of some technical or factual matter.
Cases:

Admin Review 2011

Nonetheless, apart from the filing of an MR, Deputy

Commissioner Valera immediately filed an action
Lara :-) | 4-manresa
before the court, questioning
the authority of 1the
special prosecutor.



RULING: Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely
a component unit of the Office of the Ombudsman
and may only act under the supervision & control of
OMB. In this case, the court sustained the position
of Valera considering the circumstances.

Admin Review 2011

DAR vs. PCPI, 564 SCRA 80
Facts: This involves a petition for certiorari filed by
the respondent PCPI before the CA in such petition,
PCPI asserted that the DAR exceeded or abused its
authority when it subjected its estate property to the
CARP law.

The review by the DOJ Secretary over decisions of

fiscals, as an act of supervision & control, finds basis
in this doctrine. He may thus affirm, nullify, reverse
or modify their rulings.

HELD: Remember that this issue is properly within

the competence of DAR being the implementing arm
of the CARP law. So what should have been done is
to seek recourse with the superior offices of the
DAR and not to immediately file a certiorari petition
with the courts.

Take note : The Secretary of any branch has the

power of control and supervision over subordinates
over the offices or bureaus under his department.
The authority of the DOJ secretary over all fiscals as
an act of control and supervision finds basis in this
doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies.

SC took note that in this case respondent did not

even filed a protest questioning the validity of
subjecting the properties to CARP which should
have been filed with the DAR. And it did not even
question the eligibilities of the beneficiaries. So,
applying the doctrine of admin authorities, the issue
should have been submitted with the DAR
Secretaries. Protests regarding CARP
implementation are under exclusive jurisdiction of
DAR Secretary.

Aurillo vs. Rabi, 392 SCRA 604

Facts: There was this case handed by the City
Prosecutor but the regional state prosecutor Aurillo
intervened and in fact, this case was already he
subject of resolution by the regional prosecutor as
approved by the City State Prosecutor. However, the
Regional director Aurillo took over and conducted
investigation thru the assistant state prosecutor. And
in so doing, the regional state prosecutor did not
anymore exercise the power of supervision but the
power of control over the city prosecutor. This is not
a power given to him under the law.

Corsiga vs. Defensor, 391 SCRA 274

The Regional Manager of NIA issued an order
reassigning Engr. Orbiso to a workplace different
from that stated in his appointment paper. So here,
instead of availing the doctrine of admin remedies by
filing a motion for reconsideration and then if still
aggrieved, recourse may be had with the
administrator of NIA and if still necessary, the further
step administrative in nature is before the CSC
because it has the exclusive jurisdiction involving
personnel actions including reassignment. So the
petition of Orbiso before the court is not proper.

In this case, the SC held that Regional state

prosecutor acted beyond his authority in conducting
the Preliminary Investigation because he in fact
prevented the aggrieved party from availing the
doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies such as
the filing of an MR or petition for review with the DOJ
secretary.
Take Note: The authority of the Regional State
Prosecutor does not include the conduct of
preliminary investigation. The work of the Regional
State prosecutor is administrative in nature. He has
admin supervision over city and provincial
prosecutors. He has the power of review of their
resolutions. Regional State Prosecution has
administrative supervision, not control, over City
Prosecutors and Provincial Prosecutors.

Proper Remedy: Appeal the reassignment order of

Regional Manager to NIA Administrator & if
necessary, to CSC.
Rep. vs. Extelcom, 373 SCRA 321

Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of admin

remedies when it went directly to CA on a petition for
certiorari & prohibition from the NTC Order without
Lara
:-) pursuant
| 4-manresa
1
first filing a MR w/in 15
days
to NTC Rules.
That the NTC Order became immediately executory
does not mean foreclosure of remedy of filing MR.



SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 451

Admin Review 2011

under the office of the DENR secretary for
administrative supervision, before filing a petition for
certiorari in the CA.

Under Sec. 4 of Rule 43 of Rules of Court, an

appeal (thru petition for review before CA), shall be
taken w/in 15 days from the date of the denial of the
first and only Motion for Reconsider. The filing of the
second MR by SEC before the Office of the
President did not toll the running of the period to file
a petition for review before the CA, w/c expired 15
days after petitioner SEC received the OP
Resolution denying the first MR of the SEC and
upholding the position of PICOP.

In the matter of a compromise of a claim belongs to

the COA or the Congress depending upon the
amount. Under the Auditing Code, the power to
compromise claims is exclusively vested in the
COA. But if the amount exceeds 1million, the
authority is vested with Congress.
Distinction: Exhaustion of Admin Remedies &
Due Process

Laguna CATV vs. Maraan, 392 SCRA 226

Although they are separate concepts, this two are

related.

Take note: Under Article 128 of the Labor Code, the

representative of the Department Secretary in the
exercise of his Visitorial Powers, has the power to
issue a monetary award. So instead of seeking
recourse with the Secretary of Labor he filed a case
with the CA. So here, SC said that the Appeal ofthe
monetary award of the DOLE Reg. Director should
be with the Labor Secretary consistent with the
doctrine of Exhaustion of Admin Remedies.

Exhaustion principle is based on the perspective of

the ruling tribunal, that is, the opportunity on the part
of the tribunal to correct possible errors, whiledue
process is considered from the viewpoint of the
litigating party against whom a ruling was made and
that is the opportunity to present evidence and to
controvert the charge.

The commonality they share is in the same

opportunity that underlies both, i.e. opportunity for
the ruling tribunal to re-examine its findings and
opportunity for the party to be heard.

Berba vs. Pablo, 474 SCRA 686

Submission of dispute to LuponngTagapamayapa for
conciliation or amicable settlement under Sec. 408
LGC. Applies to parties actually residing to the
same place and in the same locality/City or
municipality.

Cases where a prior MR is not necessary:

1.The order is a patent nullity, as where the tribunal
has no jurisdiction;

The Alexandra Condo Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA

453

2.There is an urgent necessity for the resolution of

the question & any further delay would prejudice
the interests of Government or of the petitioner;

Facts: what happened here was that, there was an

inquiry made by the Laguna Lake and Development
Authority. And after the requisite proceedings, after
observance of the requirement of due process, the
LLDA imposed the penalty of 1.062M for its pollutive
wastewater discharge. SO petitioner immediately
filed an action before the court.

3.Deprivation of due process & there is urgency for

judicial relief;
4.Issue is purely legal;
5.Public interest is involved.

Another issue raise here is the offer of petitioner

TACC to reduce the penalty.
RULING: SC held that applying the doctrine of
admin remedies TACC should have appealed the
LLDA Order, to the DENR Secretary in view of the
transfer of LLDA to DENR thru the Pollution
Adjudication Board for administrative supervision

6.Where the Alter-Ego Doctrine or QPA Applies

Take note again that in administrative proceedings,
the principles are liberally construed.

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of

admin remedies:



Where the issue is purely legal.

admin remedies. Where the respondent is a

department secretary, whose acts as the alter ego of
the President, bear the implied or assumed approval
of the latter.

Demaisip vs. Bacal, 12/06/00

Facts: In the matter of the issuance by the Office of
the President of an Order transferring RD Bacal from
Chief of the PAO to Regional Director of PAO Office.

Binamira vs. Garucho, 190 SCRA 154

Where the doctrine of qualified political agency
applies.The POEA issue.

Whether respondents transfer to the position of

Regional Director of PAO,of whether this constitute a
demotion, and was done or made w/o her consent.
And she claims that this amounts to removal without
cause or a constructive dismissal which violates
security of tenure.

Castro vs. Gloria, 363 SCRA 423

Facts: There was an admin complaint filed by one
Gutang against petitioner Castro for immoral
conduct. Castro allegedly had an illicit affair with the
wife of the complainant. So after due proceedings,
Castro was dismissed from service. The sole issue
raise by Castro was WON his dismissal in service
should be the proper penalty because this is his first
offense in his many years of service.

RULING: This is a purely legal issue so there is no

need for the party to exhaust admin remedies.
Arimao vs. Taher, 498 SCRA 75
Whether the memorandum of ARMM Governor,
ordering the reinstatement of petitionerArimao whoat
that time was already declared AWOL & dropped
from the rolls. Was this done in excess of
jurisdiction?

HELD: Whether or not petitioners dismissal from the

service is the proper penalty for the first offense of
disgraceful & immoral conduct is a question of law
thus there is no need to exhaust administrative
penalty.

HELD: It was issued in excess of jurisdiction. This is

a legal question and thus there is no need to
exhaust admin remedies by seeking further remedy
from the governor because it would be an exercise
in futility.

Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and

Technology, 443 SCRA 56
Facts: There was this student petitioner Regino who
failed to take the final examination because she was
barred by her teachers. Her teachers were selling
tickets to her and she refused to buy the tickets and
so she was not allowed to take the final examination.
She was not able to graduate. A case was filed by
REgino before the Court and the Pangasinan
College of Science and Technology claimed that
there should first be exhaustion of admin remedies.

Lastimoso vs. Senior Insp. Asayo, 06 March 2007

Inspector Asayo raised the issue about the
competence of the PNP chief Lastimoso to take
cognizance of the admin complaint filed against him
by a private citizen.
RULING: Whether or not the PNP Chief had
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed
by a private citizen against him is a legal question.
WON it should be before the PLEB or with some
office in the PNPis a legal issue and theres no need
to comply with this doctrine of exhaustion of admin
remedies.

HELD: SC ruled that Regino is correct. There is no

need to exhaust admin remedies because petitioner
is not asking for the reversal of the policies of PCST
nor demanding that she be allowed to take the final
exams. In fact, the petitioner filed before the court
was to claim damages. The CHED does not have
the competence to award damages. The law of
CHED does not authorize them to award damages.
So clearly this is a matter that involves the
Lara :-) |of4-manresa
1
application and interpretation
the Civil Code thus,
the issue has to be resolved by courts.

Application of ALTER EGO principle or QPA

Quisumbing vs. Gumban, 193 SCRA 523
Where the issuance emanated from the department
secretary there is no need to apply exhaustion of

Admin Review 2011

Admin Review 2011

Sabello vs. DECS, 12/26/89

Facts: The school principal of Talisay School,
SAbello, was charged before the court for a graft
case and was convicted. Subsequently he was
granted pardon. And because of the absolute pardon
given to him he was reinstated but not to his original
position as school principal but he was reinstated to
the position as classroom teacher. Without
exhausting admin remedies he went to court
questioning the reinstatement to a lower position.

land authorities prior to torrens system, the

action should be lodged before the proper admin
body in this case, the DENR and the exhaustion
of admin remedies applies.

11. The amount is too small so as to make the rule

impractical.
12. There is nothing left to be done except court
action.
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

HELD: Here, SC took into account that the petition

was filed by a non-lawyer who claim that the poverty
denied him of services of a lawyer so SC liberally
applied the principles here. In fact, SC set aside the
requirement of exhaustion of admin remedies and
resulted to go directly to the merits of the petition.

Lorena vs. Lacson (old case)

Facts: in the matter of the institutions of an

administrative case against an employee of the City
of Manila for the loss of piano. Here, the employee
was found responsible for the loss of the piano and
he was dismissed from the service. Without
exhaustion of admin remedies he filed before the
court claiming that he barely reached fourth grade
so he did not know of the processes.

HELD: SC held that lack of sufficient education does

not justify non compliance with the compliance of the
doctrine of admin remedies.
Other Exceptions on the application of the
doctrine of exhaustion:

7. There is estoppel on the part of the party

invoking it.

8. There is unreasonable delay of official action

that will irreparably prejudice the complainant.

9. There is no plain, adequate and speedy remedy

except court action.
10. The land in question is private meaning it is
already titled under the torrenssystem.If it is
already titled, any action pertaining to that land
should be lodged before the court. The doctrine
applies only to PUBLIC LANDS. Like where the
action pertains to the validity of the award of

In the absence of a constitutional provision or a

law to the contrary, the official acts of a dept
secretary are deemed acts of the President
unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter.

It establishes a single executive wherein all

executive and administrative organizations are
considered as adjuncts of the executive
department itself thus, the heads of the bodies
of these executive departments are the
assistants and agents of the president which is
the Chief Executive.

Except where the constitution or the law directs

that the president himself must act personally,
the multiple functions of these different
departments in the executive branch are
performed by the department heads and not by
the president unless disapproved or reprobated
by the president.
Hence, the acts of the secretary are presumed
the acts of the president himself.

This Doctrine applies only to the departments in

the Executive Branch. It does not apply to
Constitutional Commissions such as the
Ombudsman.

Power of DILG to investigate admin complaints is

based on this doctrine. Meaning, the Secretary of
DILG acting as the alter ego of the president may
order the conduct of disciplinary proceeding against
the local elective official.

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

Executive Secretary

Authority of the Executive Secretary to reverse

Decision of the Director that must have been
affirmed by the Department Secretary.

Admin Review 2011

acts are presumed to be the acts of the President,
unless repudiated by the latter.

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assn. vs. NPC, 503

SCRA 138

Also known as the little president. This

principle, the Executive Secretary who acts by
authority of the president.

Facts: There was a resolution passed by the NPC

Board directing the termination of the National
Power Corporation effective January 31, 2003 in line
with the restructuring of the NPC. Is this resolution
valid?

He has the power to reverse or affirm, set aside

or modify the decision of the director that had
already been affirmed by the Department
Secretary.

HELD: SC ruled that there were only three valid

votes cast out of the nine board members, because
only three were considered as the authorized
officers. Meaning, the ex-officio members cannot
delegate their responsibilities to their agents for the
agents to vote and approve the resolutions because
this requires the personal judgments on the part of
the ex-officio members which were the dept
secretaries.

It is not correct to say that the Executive

Secretary is equal in rank with the other
department heads because the executive
secretary acts by authority of the president and
therefore his position should be given full faith
and credit by the courts, because his assumed
authority is on the basis of this principle of
qualified political agency. It is the president that
has the sole authority that his acts are to be
reversed.

So, the Department Secretaries composing the NPC

Board cannot delegate their duties as members of
National Power Board of Directors, more so their
power to vote & approve board resolutions because
it is their personal judgment that must be exercised
in the fulfillment of such responsibility.

Doctrine is not applicable to Office of the

Ombudsman, since the OMB is a non political
agency and therefore
far different from the
bureaucracy to which this doctrine of qualified
political agency applies. (PEREZ vs. SB,
503scra254)

Nonetheless, the department secretary as an exofficio member may delegate tasks ministerial in
nature. The aid of subordinates may in fact be
procured so long as it is still the legal authorized
officer. Meaning it is the dept secretary who makes
the personal decision.

Province of Camarines Norte vs. Province of

Quezon, 367 SCRA 91
Facts: There was this claim by the respondents,
governor province of Quezon and Municipal Mayor
of Palawan. They claim that the technical team of
the DENR which conducted the survey in order to
make a delineation of the boundary separating the
provinces of Camarines Norte and Quezon, is illegal
because there was no authority coming from the
office of the president.

DENR Sec. vs. DENR Employees,409 SCRA 359

Facts: There was an order issued by the secretary of
the DENR for the transfer of the DENR Regional
Office from Cotabato to Koronadal. The provinces of
South Cotabato were moved from Region XI to
Region XII following the conduct of the plebiscite
within the proposed area of the ARMM. So the
DENR Sec issued and order for the transfer of the
regional office. The employees affected sought to
enjoin the transfer contending that the secretary of
DENR does not have the authority to issue the order
for the transfer of the regional office.

HELD: SC applied the doctrine of qualified political

agency.The authority of the DENR technical team
which conducted the survey emanated from the
Special Order issued by the DENR Secretary, the
alter ego of the President, creating this technical
survey team precisely for the purpose of making the
delineation of the boundary of the two provinces. His

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

HELD: Under Art. VII, Sec 17 of the 1987

Constitution, the President has power of Control



over all departments and Bureau in the Executive
branch. Since the president is the chief executive,
he has the continuing authority even under the
Revised Admin Code (EO 292) to reorganize any
department or branch of the executive dept so long
as it is an office within the office of the president.
And this power may in fact be delegated by
President to the Secreatary such as in the case at
bar.

Issue: WON the order of the president directing the

development and implementation of the housing
project without securing first the authority of the
DENR for the reclamation of this land is
constitutional.
HELD: SC ruled that since the president is the head
of the executive branch there is nothing
unconstitutional if the President directs the
development of housing project w/o DENR
authorization to reclaim the land. In fact, in such
order of implementation, the president but made the
DENR a member of the implementing committee.
The President can exercise executive power
motuproprio. The ultimate power over alienable &
disposable public land (Smokey Mountain) is
reposed in the President and not the DENR
Secretary. So there is no need for the president to
seek first authorization from DENR because
otherwise it would constitute a derogation of the
powers of the president if he will still secure authority
from his subordinate.

DENR Secretarys Order transferring the regional

office from Cotabato City to Koronadal City is
deemed the Presidents act. This power may be
delegated to his cabinet members. It is presumed
order of the president.
Principle of Presidential Power of Control

Presidents power over the executive branch of

government, including all executive officers from
Cabinet Secretary down to the lowest clerk in
the executive branch.(Sec. 17, Art. Vll)

Bito-onon vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732

Power to alter, modify or nullify or set aside what

a subordinate had done in the performance of
his duties and to substitute the judgment of the
former with that of the latter.

Distinguishing POWER OF CONTROL from

POWER OF SUPERVISION:
The power of control of the president applies to
departments, bureaus and offices in the executive
branch whereas the power of supervision of the
president pertains to the presidents authority over
local government units.

Sec. 31 of EO 292 gives the President the

continuing authority to reorganize the offices,
bureaus or agencies belonging or within the office of
the president. The objective is in order to achieve
the efficiency of the executive branch.

In the exercise of power of control by the president,

he lays down the rules in the doing of the act. In fact,
the president has the discretion whether to order the
act be done or re-done or he may himself perform
the act, whereas, the power of supervision is a
mere power of Oversight over Local government
Units, to check LGUs or the elective officials if they
have performed their duties as provided by law. In
the exercise of this power of Supervision, the
president cannot lay down the rules unlike in the
exercise of power of control. This authority is limited
to ensuring that the local government officials
faithfully observed the law and the rules. But the
president cannot order that the act be done in such
a manner.

Tondo Medical Center Employees Assn. vs. CA,

527 SCRA 748

Reorganization of DOH under EO 102 was issued

by the president The issue here is whether the
president in issuing such order usurped a power
belonging to the legislative branch of government.
SC declared that this is within the ambit of power of
control of the president under the constitution and
under EO 292. The department head is an office
within the office of the president hence under his
power of control and supervision. It is not a
usurpation of legislative power.
Cases:
Chavez vs. NHA, 530 SCRA 241

Admin Review 2011

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

Presidents Power of General Supervision

ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or the

subordinate acts within the law;

Admin Review 2011

Ligangmga Barangay. It was a direct interference of
the DILG in the affairs of the barangay. The DILG
was no longer performing the power of supervision
but one control thus invalid.

compatible with power to discipline which

includes power to investigate;

REVIEW OF ADMININTRATIVE DECISIONS BY

SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES:

The president is the disciplining authority but the

disciplinary proceedings may be delegated to
the subordinate the DILG Secretary may
become the investigating authority, or this task
may be given to some other committee.

The review of administrative decisions may be made

by:
1. Higher admin authorities applying the doctrine of
Exhaustion;

Jurisdiction over admin disciplinary cases vs.

elective local officials lodged in two authorities:

1. Disciplining Authority ( President);

2. Courts.

2. Investigating Authority (DILG or any other

Committee that may be created for such
purpose).

Findings of Facts
General rule: Finding of Facts of Administrative
Bodies are not subject to judicial review and factual
findings of admin agencies are accorded not only
respect but even finality so long as the decisions
rendered by the admin tribunals are confined to
matters within their competence and the decision is
based on substantial evidence.

Bito-onon vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732

Presidents power of general supervision extends to
the Ligangmga Barangay. The ligangmgaBrangay is
an aggrupment of Barangays represented by the
barangay captains. The representatives of the Liga
sit in an ex officio capacity at the municipal, city &
provincial sanggunians. TheLiga is the vehicle thru
w/c the barangay participates in enactment of
ordinances and the formulation of policies at the
higher level than the SangguniangBarnagay.

Examples where Courts cannot look into:

a. Issues relating to the credibility of witnesses or
weight of their testimonies.

David vs. Paredes, 439 SCRA 130

b. Weighing conflicting claims of parties.

Facts: There was this order issued by Judge

Paredes appointing the DILG as the interim
caretaker to manage and administer the affairs of
the Liga (Caloocan City Chapter). Because of this
order by the court, the DILG as the interim caretaker
performed so many acts like it nullified the results of
the election in the Liga of Caloocan City. It also
appointed some other person as the president of the
Liga-Caloocan City chapter over the choice of the
majority of the members of Liga.
HELD: SC ruled that The Ligangmga Barangay is
not subject to control by Chief Executive or his alter
ego. The acts of the DILG in nullifying results of Liga
elections & appointing Rayos as Pres. of LigaCaloocan went beyond the power of supervision. It
usurped a power belonging to the National

Take note: The review by the Court is limited only to

evidence already submitted, whereas, in the case of
a review by a superior administrative authority, it
may in fact conduct a new or re-investigation. But
this cannot be done by courts because on the first
place, courts cannot review the factual findings of
the administrative tribunals.
Exceptions:
1. Misappreciation of factual finding by the admin
tribunals;

2. Decison is not based

evidence;
Laraon
:-)substantial
| 4-manresa
1

Admin Review 2011

3. Where the court finds it necessary to review the

case;

When may courts review administrative

decisions?

Bautista vs. Araneta, 326 SCRA 234

1. If it involves determination of onstitutionality of a

law, treaty or order issued by the admin tribunal;

The issues of Tenancy is not purely factual because

it also involves a legal relationship WON the
landowner consented. So SC time and again said
that since tenancy is not purely a factual issue so
this may be reviewed by the court.

2. To determine the competence or jurisdiction of

admin body;
3. Determine any other question of law;
4. When necessary to determine question of fact in
order to determine whether there is a
constitutional or jurisdictional issue, the
commission of abuse of authority, or error of law
has been committed.

In the matter of Tenancy issues. If the administrative

officer such as theMunicipal AgrarianTechnologist,
makes a certification that, in this case, petitioner
Bautista is a tenant.

Fabian vs. Agustin, 14 February 2003 (conflicting

factual findings)

Take note: All errors or decisions of administrative

bodies involving a question of law are subject to
judicial review under Sec. 5 (2e), Art. Vlll of
Constitution.
Remedies:

Facts: District Engineer Agustin was charged by

petitioner Fabian who was the contractor who had
an illicit affair with Agustin. So when their affair
ceased, this contractor woman filed an
administrative case against Agustin for Grave
Misconduct and Immorality. So the hearing officer
issued a finding imposing the penalty of dismissal
from service. Ombudsman Disierto modified the
finding. Instead of dismissal from the service, he
imposed the penalty of one month suspension and
then he had to inhibit himself upon motion of the
aggrieved party. The task of review was given to the
deputy and the deputy ordered he dismissal of the
case. When this matter was elevated before the CA,
the CA adopted the decision of Disierto and imposed
the penalty of 1month suspension. On Motion for
Recon, the CA set aside its earlier finding and
ordered the dismissal of the case.

a. Rule 45- appeal;

b. Rule 65- Certiorari.
Rule 45
Principle that only questions of law shall be raised in
an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 admits of exceptions, namely:
1. Findings are grounded entirely on speculations or
conjectures;
2.

HELD: So, on various level there was here a

conflicting factual findings which wound justify the
supreme court in looking into the factual milieu of the
case.

Inference made by Admin tribunal is manifestly

mistaken;

3. There is grave abuse of discretion;

4. The judgment is based on misappreciation of
facts by the administrative authority;

Matuguina Wood Products vs. CA, 263 SCRA 508

5. The findings of facts are conflicting;

The issue of whether or not petitionerMatuguina

Wood Products
is the alter ego of Milagros
Matuguina, the losing party in the Mineral Resources
case, is one of fact, and should be threshed out in
said Administrative Proceedings and not in
prohibition proceedings in court.

6. The findings are conclusions without citation of

specific evidence on w/c they are based;

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

7. Findings of facts are premised on the supposed

absence of evidence but contradicted by the
evidence on record .

Admin Review 2011

Bernaldo vs. Ombudsman, 562 SCRA 60

Here, the OMB decision against Bernaldo was not
supported by substantial evidence. It was based on
speculations or conjectures prompting the review by
the Court.
Again take note: The review by the Court is limited
only to evidence already submitted with the admin
bodies, whereas, in the case of a review by a
superior administrative authority, it may in fact
conduct a new or re-investigation. But this cannot be
done by courts because on the first place, courts
cannot review the factual findings of the
administrative tribunals.

This doctrine states that when a finding of fact is

so intimately involved and dependent upon a
question of law, the court will, in order to resolve
the question of law, examine the factual setting
including the evidence adduced thereto. The
more important issue, which is of law, will
assimilate/examine the facts of the case
including the evidence submitted to the admin
bodies.

Lacson vs. PEA & PAGC, 30 May 2011
The Philippine Estate Authority rendered a decision
to dismiss petitioners from the service, upon
recommendation of PAGC as approved by the
President after due proceedings. The remedy of the
aggrieved party should have been to appeal the
decision to the CSC under EO 292. From CSC, it
can be elevated to the CA via a petition for review
under Rule 43. From there, it can be appealed to the
SC thru a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45.

Rule 65:
Evidentiary or factual matters are not proper
grounds in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Such petition will prosper only if there is showing of
grave abuse of discretion or an act w/o or in excess
of jurisdiction of admin tribunal.
The Alexandra Condo Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA
453

Immunities that may be granted by administrative

tribunals:

Facts: what happened here was that, there was an

inquiry made by the Laguna Lake and Development
Authority. And after the requisite proceedings, after
observance of the requirement of due process, the
LLDA imposed the penalty of 1.062M for its pollutive
wastewater discharge. SO petitioner immediately
filed an action before the court under Rule 65.
Held: SC laid down the Requisites for petition for
certiorari to proper: Petitioner TACC must show that
-

Not an inherent power of the administrative

bodies.

Admin bodies cannot grant criminal and civil

immunities to persons unless the law explicitly
confers such power.

Example:
1. The PCGG under EO 14A. The PCGG is
authorized to grant immunity from criminal
prosecution to any person who provides
testimony or information in connection with the
conduct of investigation by the PCGG on the
unlawful acquisition of wealth by public officers.

a. LLDA acted w/o or in excess of its jurisdiction or

with grave abuse of discretion; and
b. there is no appeal or a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The
plain & adequate remedy is an MR of the assailed
decision (Alexandra Condo. Corp. vs. LLDA, 599
SCRA 455).

What about the Civil Immunities? Is PCGG

empowered to grant Civil Immunities?

Mixed questions of facts and law are subject to

judicial review
(Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts).

- There is no express provision in the charter of the

Lara
| 4-manresa
law creating PCGG
but:-)what
applies here is 1Art.
2028 of the Civil Code: amicable settlement in
civil cases is equally applicable to PCGG cases.



2.

OMB under Sec. 17 of RA 6770. The

Ombudsman may grant immunities from criminal
prosecution to any person whose testimony is
essential for the prosecution of the case filed
against the public officer.

Admin Review 2011

Gatchalian Talents Pool vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA
406
Facts: The act of Naldoza as counsel of Gatchalian
Talent School in pocketing the amount of
2555dollars which was supposedly for the filing of a
cash bond for the appealed case in the POEA. But
really in that case, the decision of POEA already
became final and executor. This matter was
concealed by the lawyer and he still asked for the
amount mentioned above. Subsequently, a
disbarment case was instituted by Gatchalian
against Naldoza and at the same time, there was an
institution of a criminal action for Estafa. In the
criminal case, this lawyer was acquitted. On this
basis, Naldoza argued that, the disbarment should
likewise ought to be dismissed.

Three-fold Responsibility
A public official may be held civilly, criminally and
administratively liable for violation of duty or for a
wrongful act or omission.
RULE: These remedies may be invoked separately,
alternately, simultaneously or successively. Defeat of
any of the three remedies will not necessarily
preclude resort to other remedies or affect decisions
reached thereat, as different degrees of evidence
are required in these several actions.

HELD: SC ruled that the proceedings are separate

and distinct from each other. A criminal prosecution
will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the
same facts are attendant in the admin proceedings.

General Rule: Admin cases are separate and distinct

and independent from criminal cases. The outcome
of the former will not govern or affect the result of the
latter or vice versa even if it arises from the same
facts and circumstances.

Ocampo vs. Ombudsman, 322 SCRA 22

Exception: Law expressly provides for prior final

administrative determination. The law itself declares
that there must first be the finding in the admin case
as a condition to the determination of the criminal
liability of the public officer.

Facts: The act of the employee of NIA Ocampo in his

capacity as training coordinator, imparting the
amount of 9,600dollars that he received as training
fee. SO cases were filed against him, one criminal
for estafa and falsification which subsequently was
dismissed by the RTC. Nonetheless, there was also
this admin action filed against him before the office
of the ombudsman. Ocampo argued that the omb
ought to likewise dismiss the case in view of the
dismissal of the criminal case.

Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 232

Facts: Petitioner Chua filed a criminal action for
violation of PD 957- authority of HLURB. So, a
criminal action for the violation of this law was
instituted before the prosecutors office. Here, the
prosecutor dismissed the case on the ground of
prematurity arguing that there should first be a prior
determination in the administrative action.

HELD: Absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt

does not mean an absence of any evidence for there
is another class of evidence w/c, though insufficient
to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is
adequate in admin cases as substantial evidence.

HELD: There is no such condition for a prior

administrative action under PD 957. So clearly the
action of the prosecutor in dismissing the case is
without merit. Where the law is silent on the matter,
the fundamental principle that admin cases are
independent from criminal cases fully applies.

In the hierarchy of evidentiary values:

1. proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is at the
highest level;
2.

One such law is in the prosecution of unfair labor

practice under the Labor Code where no criminal
prosecution for ULP can be instituted without a final
judgment in a previous administrative proceeding.

3.

clear & convincing evidence;

Lara
:-) | 4-manresa
preponderance of
evidence;
and

4. substantial evidence.

Admin Review 2011

Facts: There was this admin action filed against
respondent clerk of court Caube, but during the
pendency of this case, he died.

Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria

vs. Sunga , 368 SCRA 551) Although the law itself
may provide or grant discretion to the administrative
authority whether or not to proceed with the
administrative adjudication after the lapse of a
certain period. This is different from prescription of
offenses.

ISSUE: WON it should result to the dismissal of the

admin case filed against him by reason of his death.
HELD: The death or retirement of officer from the
service does not preclude a finding of administrative
liability to which he shall be answerable. Jurisdiction
over the admin complaint was not lost by mere fact
of respondent Caubes death during pendency of the
admin case. The tribunal retains jurisdiction to
pronounce him innocent or guilty. If innocent it would
merit vindication of his name and if there
areevidence to sustain a finding of guilt, therefore,
the proper imposition should be made for record
purposes in order to protect the integrity of Civil
Service System.

Floria vs. Sunga, 368 scra 551

A court employee admitting to have had an illicit
relationship with a co-employee in the CA but this
happened in the past. Nonetheless, the SC ruled
that this may still be a basis for administrative action
even if the act was done in the past because the
stigma of immorality still attaches.
Sec. 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription but the
discretion given to the OMB. The OMB may not
conduct admin investigation if the complaint was
filed after 1 year from occurrence of the act or
omission complained of .

Affidavit of Desistance in Administrative actions:

The withdrawal of a complaint or desistance of
complainant will not automatically result to dismissal
of admin case. Complainant is a mere witness, the
real party in interest is the State. So the state thru
the administrative tribunal must still pursue the
administrative action.

(Melchor vs. Gironella, 451 SCRA 476

Facts: Ombudmans still took cognizance of the case
even the complaint was filed more than 7 years after
the commission of the acts. Respondent argued that
the case should have already been dismissed on the
basis of Sec 20 of RA 6770.

Of course, the rule is not absolute because there are

some instances where the admin case can only be
successfully prosecuted thru the testimony of the
complaining witness who withdrew or desisted. The
tribunal will no longer have any other option but to
dismiss the case.

HELD: SC ruled that this provision does not involve

a prescription of offense but rather a matter of
discretion on the part of the office of the ombudsman
whether or not to conduct an investigation if the filing
was done one year after the commission of the
offense.

Rule on anonymous complaints

OMB vs. De Sahagun, 562 SCRA 123

HELD: Object sought is not punishment of the officer
but improvement of public service & preservation of
public faith & confidence. While complaint was filed
more than 7 yrs. after commission, OMB may still
investigate

Exec. Judge Loyao vs. Caube, 402 SCRA 33

It does not trigger Formal investigation. Under

our laws, the respondent public officer cannot be
compelled to answer an unverified complaint.

This means only that the tribunal has options

available to it such as the conduct of a fact
finding investigation. If on the basis of this
complaint there are really sufficient evidence to
proceed with a fact finding investigation the
purpose of which is to gather evidence and as
soon as gathered, this may be made basis of a
formal investigation
or | charged
against 1the
Lara :-)
4-manresa
public officer.

Still, the administrative tribunal has to proceed

with caution in the matter of the conduct of
investigation concerning this anonymous
complaints

HELd: Aguinaldo doctrine cannot apply to an

appointive officer who subsequently seek and was
elected in public office. Nonetheless, the SC held
that she would not be liable because the alleged
documents falsified were not submitted as evidence
in the investigation conducted by the office of the
ombudsman.

Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation

Applies only to an elective public officials who

seeks re-election to public position.

Aggrieved Party who may appeal the administrative

decision

Admin Review 2011

Sec.39(a), PD 807: Appeals, where allowable, shall

be made by the party adversely affected by the
decision x xx.

Doctrine provides that he cannot be subjected to

disciplinary action for administrative misconduct
committed during a prior term because the terms
of office are separate and distinct. So if the term
of office has already expired, it means that the
authority of the disciplining power to discipline
already ended by reason of the expiration of the
term of the elective official.

In so many cases, SC held that the party adversely

affected is the public officer who is administratively
charged and after due proceedings there is the
imposition of administrative penalty which may be in
the form of a fine of more than 1 month salary, or
suspension, or dismissal. The party aggrieved has
the right to appeal under Sec. 39 because the
decision is against his interest. This ruling has been
set aside in the case of CSC vs. Dacoycoy.

Reasons for the rule:

1. Because the people themselves already
expressly made their decision on this issue by
choosing to elect the same official.

CSC vs. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 426

Facts: A vocational school administrator Dacoycoy

was administratively charged for nepotism.
Dacoycoy appointed his two sons to career
positions. This issue was raised before the CSC.
The CSC took cognizance of the nepotism case and
after due proceedings, the CSC imposed the penalty
of dismissal from service. Under the rules, the
decision of the CSC is appealable before the CA and
when CA acted on this appeal, the CA reversed the
decision of CSC. CA found Dacoycoy innocent of the
charge.

2. Consitutents already pardoned whatever

administrative offenses that were committed by
the elective official;
3. On the basis of public policy because otherwise,
the elective official may be left with no other
means but to defend himself troughout the
succeeding term to the detriment of public
service.
Ombudsman vs. Torres, 566 SCRA 365

ISSUE: May there still be an appeal from this

decision of the CA exonerating Dacoycoy? Who is
the aggrieved party here?

Doctrine cannot benefit an appointive officer who

subsequently seek an elective office.

The aggrieved party cannot be the complainant

because the complainant is merely a witness to the
admin case. Nor would it be the respondent public
officer because precisely he was exonerated by the
CA.

Facts: Maricar Torres, the daughter of a councilor, in

her capacity as the assistant liason officer of her
father, she was charged with the alleged falsification
of her DTR. She was charged administratively in her
capacity sa an appointing officer. But during the
pendency of the case, she ran for an elective
position.In fact she got elected as councilor.

HELD: The aggrieved

here is the CSC
Lara party
:-) | 4-manresa
1
because it is mandated under the law to preserve
the integrity of the civil service system. So CSC has

Admin Review 2011

the legal standing to appeal the exoneration. CSC

as aggrieved party may appeal the CA decision to
SC. By this ruling, SC abandoned & overruled prior
decisions that the Civil Service Law does not
contemplate a review of decisions exonerating
public officers from administrative charges.

the OMB that is to act as champion of the people

and to preserve the integrity of the CS system.

Rules on Appeal:

Exceptions to the res judicata doctrine:

CSC shall decide on appeal all administrative

disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a
penalty of suspension for more than 30 days but not
exceeding 1 year, or a fine in an amount exceeding
30 days salary, or when the penalty is demotion,
transfer or dismissal from service (Sec. 37 PD 807)

In other words even if the decision has attained

finality and therefore ought to be given within the res
judicata principles, these are the instance where
court may still look upon if:

General Rule: Decisions of administrative agencies

have, upon their finality, the binding effect of a final
judgment within purview of res judicata doctrine.

a. supervening events make it imperative to modify

a final judgment to harmonize it with prevailing
circumstances;

Also, the CSC law provides for the finality of the

decision where there is exoneration or dismissal of
the case or when the penalty imposed is suspension
not to exceed 1 month.

b.

its application would sacrifice justice to

technicality;

c. parties involved waived it or do not timely raised it

as a defense;

If penalty imposed by the admin body is suspension

of more than one month, follow Sec 37, the
aggrieved party has the right to appeal with the
CSC.

d.

issue of citizenship.

Philippine National police (PNP) RA 8551

A party may elevate a decision of CSC before the

CA thru petition for review under Rule 43 of Revised
Rules of Court.

Sec. 6, Art. XVl of 1987 Constitution. The state shall

establish and maintain one police force which shall
be nationa in scope and civilian in character to be
administered and regulated by the National Police
Commission. (NAPOLCOM)

OMB vs. Samaniego, 564 SCRA 569

Facts: There was this administrative case for grave
misconduct filed against respondent city treasurer
Samaniego and after due proceedings, the OMB
imposed the penalty of suspension. And under the
rules, this suspension imposed by the OMB may be
elevated before the CA. What the respondent did
here was that he filed a certiorari case with the CA.
So, the OMB filed motions for intervention in this
petition for review on certiorari before the CA but the
CA denied the motion of the OMB to intervene. So
this matter was elevated before the SC.

Prior to the 1987 Consitution what we have is

the Integrated National Police and they are
under the jurisdiction of Military Courts just like
the AFP but not anymore under the reformed
provision becasue it specify Civilian in
character

HELD: SC ruled that CA acted without basis in

denying the OMBs motion for intervention in this
petition for review on Certiorari because the OMB is
a real party in interest. The Ombudsman has clear
legal interest in the inquiry of WON respondent
treasurer committed grave misconduct. This is
simply in line with the mandate given by the law to

The Napolocom is an agency attached to the

DILG for policy and program coordination. It is
not an integral part thereof but only attached to it
administratively.

Authority of local chief executives: one of operational

control & supervision(Sec. 62 RA 8551)This means:

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

a. the power to direct and oversee the day to day

functions of police investigation of crime
prevention;

1. In decisions issued by the PLEB or the Regional

Director of the PNP, the appeal is thru the
REGIONAL APPELLATE BOARD(RAB)

b. traffic control- includes the power to direct the

employment and deployment of elements of the
PNP to ensure public safety and maintenance of
peace and order within the locality.

2. In decisions issued by the Chief of PNP, the
remedy is before the NATIONAL APPELLATE
BOARD;

EXCEPTION where local chief has no operational

control: Within 30 days immediately preceding and
following any election, the local chief executive does
not have operational control over them.

Appellate jurisdiction of NAPOLCOM thru NAB and

RAB. The NAB and RAB are the appellate
machineries of the NAPOLCOM. So it is wrong to
state that the appeal should be taken to the
NAPOLCOM from the decision of the NAB and the
RAB.

Prior to the amendments, the PNP under the DILG

was given the primary responsibility to matters
involving the suppression of insurgency. But NOT
ANYMORE under RA 8551, The DILG is already
relieved of the primary responsibility on matters
involving the suppression of insurgency and other
serious threats to national security. It is now
generally within AFP only. The responsibility of PNP
pertains to information gathering and performance of
its ordinary police functions, unless the president
calls on the PNP to support the armed forces of the
Philippine in combat operations.

Appeals from decision of NAPOLCOM should be

with the Secretary of DILG and then with CSC.

From JAZZIE notes:

DICIPLINING AUTHORITIES:

PLEB/Regl Director -----> RAB -----> Sec of DILG

-------> CSC

of PNP
10 days
60 days

1. Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB)

2. Regional Directors;

Chief
-----------> RAB
-------> CSC
of PNP
10 days

3. PNP Chief.

People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB)

Admin Review 2011

----------> Sec of DILG

60 days

Has jurisdiction to hear citizen's complaints and

of course those complaints filed before that body
where the penalty imposable is forfeiture of
salaries or suspension of more that 30 days or
dismissal from the service.

TAKE NOTE: Criminal cases involving PNP

members are w/in exclusive jurisdiction of regular
courts. Courts-martial are not courts under the
judiciary but are instrumentalities of executive
power.

Decision of the PLEB is appealable within 10

days to the Regional Appellate Board (RAB)

Section 46 of the RA 7975

Power of PLEB to dismiss PNP members upon

citizens complaint under Sec. 42 of RA 6975 is
concurrent with PNP Chief and regional directors
under Sec. 45 of RA 8551.
Take note:

If a member of the PNP is criminally charged,

the offense must be investigated by the regular
courts (MTC, RTC, and Sandiganbayan [as to
high-ranking officers]). It must be lodged first
before the prosecutors office for the finding of
probable cause.
If such probable cause is
found, a criminal complaint is to be filed in the
regular courts. Lara :-) | 4-manresa
1

Section 42 of the Civil Service Law

Preventive suspension of a public officer must

be for a fixed period and must not exceed 90
days

Admin Review 2011

who are likewise covered by the Articles of War (RA
7055)

General Rule: AFP members & other persons

subject to military law, who commit crimes penalized
under RPC (like coup detat), other special penal
laws, or local ordinances shall be tried by the
proper civil court.

Exception: Section 47 of RA 7975 provides for

the indefinite suspension of member of PNP if
he is charged with a grave offense punishable
by 6 years and 1 day or more

Exception: Where the civil court, before

arraignment, has determined the offense to be
service connected, then the offending soldier
shall be tried by a court martial.

Andaya vs. RTC, 319 SCRA 696

Facts: Where the Mayor of Cebu Garcia, wanted to
include his protge inspector Sarmiento. On the
basis of his action before the court. The RTC issued
an order directing the inclusion of this police officer
who was not included in the list submitted to the
mayor.

Exception to the exception: Where the President,

in the interest of justice, directs before arraignment
that any such crime shall be tried by the proper
civil court.

HELD: The SC ruled that the authority of the Mayor

is limited, and that is to select only one from the list
of eligible for such position as so submitted to him
by the Regional Police Director.

So, there is a need to delineate the jurisdiction

between the civil court and the court martial.
REASON for delineation: To preserve the peculiar
nature of the military justice system which is
disciplinary in nature. It is aimed at achieving the
highest form of discipline in order to attain the
highest degree of military efficiency.

This case resolves the issue on the extent of

authority of the local chief executive to appoint the
local Chief of Police either of the City or Province.
It is the responsibility of the Regional Police Director
which has prerogative to name the 5 eligibles for
position of city police chief from a list/pool of eligible
officers screened by the Senior Officers Promotion &
Selection Board of the PNP w/o interference from
local executives.

Service-connected offenses are limited to those

defined in the Articles of War (CA 408), violations of
which are triable by courts martial. The delineation of
jurisdiction between civil courts and courts martial
over crimes committed by military personnel is
necessary to preserve the peculiar nature of military
justice system, which is aimed at achieving the
highest form of discipline to ensure the highest
degree of military efficiency.

As applied to the Province, the list shall contain

three (3) eligible, for t Chief of Police of the City, it
shall contain a list of five (5) elgible from the list so
chosen by the Regional Police Director.

Lt. Gonzales et al vs. Abaya, 498 SCRA 446

The mayor has limited power to select one from

among the list of eligiblessubmitted to him by the
regional Police director as police chief. He cannot
require the inclusion of any other person even if his
choice is better qualified.

Facts: There was this order issued by the court

declaring that all the charges filed before the court
martial against petitioners were not service
connected.

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) (RA 7055)

An Act Strengthening Civilian Supremacy over the
Military by Returning to Civil Courts the Jurisdiction
over Certain Offenses involving AFP Members,
Other Persons Subject to Military Law including the
Citizens Civilian Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU)

HELD: SC ruled that the RTC here gravely abused

its discretion in issuing such an order because the
offenses charged against petitionerswere those
enumerated under the Articles of War particularly
their duty under Art. 96 - their alleged violation of
Lara :-) | 4-manresa
1
their solemn oath to defend the Constitution & the
duly constituted authorities, w/c is serviceconnected.



OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG)
(PD 478/BklV, Admin Code)

Gen. Rule: SolGen can represent a public official in

all civil, criminal and special proceedings when such
proceedings arise from the latters acts in his
official capacity.

Gen. Rule: Solicitor General is the lawyer of the

government, its instrumentalities, agencies &
officials. He has the obligation to represents a public
official in all civil, criminal & special proceedings,
when such proceedings arise from the latters acts
in his official capacity or in the discharge of his
Official Function.

Exception: Such official or agent is being charged

criminally or being sued civilly for damages arising
from the commission of a felony. In this case, the
state can never be liable. The state can never be the
author of a wrongful act committed by its officer.

Rule: Whenever an action has to be taken by the

Republic of the Philippines of its agencies, it should
be initiated by the Sol Gen. So, actions in the name
of the RP or its instrumentality, if not initiated by the
Solicitor General, will be summarily dismissed.

Cases:
Dir. Pascual vs. Judge Beltran, 505 SCRA 559
Facts: There was this civil action for damages filed
by this woman employee of the telecom office
against her boss Director Pascual. So the damage
suit was filed before the RTC. And the complaint
mentioned petitioner as the head of the Telecom
Regional Office.

Exceptions:
1. When the government office is adversely
affected by a contrary stand take by the OSG.

Admin Review 2011

HELD: The fact that his position was mentioned in

the complaint, this mention of petitioners name in
the complaint for damages w/the RTC arising from
the alleged malicious administrative suit filed by
director pascual against respondent Raymundo,
does not transform the action into one against him in
his official capacity. In other words, the Sol Gen
does not have the authority to represent. The Sol
Gen ought not to represent this director Pascual in
this damage suit.

Of course it is quite impossible for the Sol

Gen to have consistent positions wherein
both parties are government offices.

Orbos vs. CSC, 12 Sept. 1990

In the matter of the reorganization undertaken in the
DOTC and here, DOTC was represented by the
SOLGEN and of course, the CSC ought likewise to
be represented by the Sol Gen. But here, the Sol
Gen sided with the DOTC in the matter of the issue
on the authority of the CSC to direct the agency or
department in this case Secretary Orbos to issue
appointments to the contestants. Clearly, this is not
the authority of the CSC.

Urbano vs. Chavez & Co vs. Chavez, 183 SCRA

347
Facts: There was this criminal case for violation of
the anti-graft law filed against Sol Gen Chavez
before the OMB and he was represented by his own
office, the lawyers and deputies of his own office.

So, in this situation, what should be done is for the

agency such as the CSC to be represented by its
own in-house counsel whenever the position taken
by the Sol Gen is contrary to the stand of the agency
concerned.

HELD: The OSG cannot represent a public official at

any stage of a criminal case or in a civil case for
damages arising from a felony. A public official sued
in a criminal case is actually sued in his personal
capacity since the State can never be the author of a
wrongful act. Similarly, any pecuniary liability an
official may be hold to account in the civil suit is for
his own account.

2. SolGen itself deputizes the legal officers of any

office, branch or instrumentality of the
government. Where the legal officers shall assist
the Sol Gen and shall represent the office they
belong to. (Sec. 35, Ch. 123. BklV, EO 292)

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

CO vs. CHAVEZ



Facts: Chinese businessman Co sued Chavez in a
civil suit for damages in connection with an interview
and the businessworld publish this interview
imputing malice against the petitioner.

requirement that this petition should be initiated by

the Sol Gen was in fact ratified by reason of the filing
of a consolidated reply. And in this consolidated
reply, the OSG already signed as co-counsel. SO
the defect was cured.

ISSUE: WON Chavez ought to be represented by

the OSG

The unauthorized filing of the petition for certiorari

under Rule 65 by RP thru PCGG w/o OSG
participation re OMB dismissal of graft case vs.
Cojuangco et al. was ratified, and the defect was
cured, when OSG signed as co-counsel for the
Republic in its Consolidated Reply.

HELD:
The Sol Gen cannot represent Chavez
because it is a damage suit arising from the
commission of a felony.

Admin Review 2011

General rule: GOCCs must be represented by

the Office of the Government Corporate Council
(OGCC)
EO 292 recognizes the power of the OSG to
deputize other government lawyers as their
deputies

OMBUDSMAN (RA 6770)

Constitutional Mandate:
Acts as protector of the people, OMB has the power,
function and duty to act promptly on complaints
filed in any form or manner against public officials
and to investigate any act or omission of any public
official when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

Take note: GOCC are generally represented by the

Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
(OGCC) but whenever there is authority given to the
OSG for it to represent even the GOCC such as the
NPC on the basis of the authority of the Head of the
Office of the President. Certainly, the OSG now
becomes the Counsel of Record of this GOCC.

Need for Prompt Action

Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70
Facts: There was this criminal case pending against
then press secretary Tatad during the time of
Marcos.

NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 706

HELD: Copies of orders served on the deputized
special attorney, acting as agent of the SolGen, are
not binding until they are received by the OSG. The
proper basis for computing the reglementary period
to file an appealshall only commence at the time of
receipt of service on OSG of such orders or
resolutions adverse to the GOCC in this case the
NPC.

Delay of 3 years in the conduct Preliminary

Investigation violates accused Tatads right to due
process and right to speedy trial. And here, the SC
ruled that there was in fact malice made in the
institution this case against Tatad for failure to
comply with the statement of assets and liabiltities.

Republic vs. Desierto, 389 SCRA 452

Angchangco vs. OMB, 13 February 1997

Facts: This case arose because of the dismissal by

OMB Desierto of the graft cases filed before the
office of the OMB against Conjuangco et al. This
related to the acquisition of the United Coconut Mills
using Cco Levy Funds allegedly public funds and yet
the OMB dismissed the case. So the PCGG on its
own filed this petition under Rule 65 alleging grave
abuse on the part of OMB Desierto.

What happened here is that there was an alleged

delay of 6 years. Angchangco, the deputy sheriff
complained that the case for violation of anti-graft
law filed against him has been unresolved for long
years until it reached his retirement. So he was not
able to get his retirement benefits by reason of the
pendency of the graft case pending before the OMB.
Lara :-) | 4-manresa
1
The graft case was filed only after six years.

HELD: The SC ruled that in the interest of

substantial justice and to attain speedy justice, the

Admin Review 2011

HELD: Constitutional right to speedy disposition of

cases extends to all parties in all cases & in all
proceedings, including judicial & quasi-judicial
hearing.

Jurisdiction of OMB encompasses all kinds of

malfeasance, misfeasance & nonfeasance
committed by any public officer or employee during
his tenure of office.

Ombudsman vs. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135

Uy vs. Ombudsman, 03/20/01

Facts: Bureau of Customs employee complained

after he received the decision imposing the penalty
of suspension for six months on a finding of neglect
of duty that there was violation of his right to speedy
disposition of case. Remember that this right applies
to all ki8nds of proceedings not only to criminal
cases.

OMB is clothed w/authority to conduct PI & to

prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers
& employees, not only w/in the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan, but those w/in jurisdiction of regular
courts,
OMB authority is shared or concurrent with similarly
authorized government agencies like the DOJ
(Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 637). It does
not mean that the DOJ no longer has power to
conduct PI on cases filed against public officers
because the authority of the ombudsman is not
exclusive but rather concurrent with the DOJ
prosecutors. Even if he is a mayor, DOJ still have
shared jurisdiction over him, in fact this is a nonoffice related charge.

HELD: SC ruled that there was no violation of the

right to speedy disposition of the case because
when the complaint was filed in 1992, he was not yet
subjected to preliminary investigation. What
happened was that this was the subject of a fact
finding investigation. During this period of 1992 up to
the time that he received this formal notice for him to
respond or answer which was in 1997, he was not
yet made respondent. So when the decision came
out two years after there was actually no undue
delay by OMB.

This was actually covered by the circular entered

into between OMB and DOJ in 1995. Cir 05-01
delineating the jurisdiction, authorities and
responsibilities of the DOJ and OMB prosecutors.

Section 15 of RA 6770 confers plenary powers

to the OMB to investigate and prosecute any act
or omission of a public official when such act
appears to be improper, unjust, illegal or
inefficient
Section 11 of RA 6770 authorizes the Office of
the Special Prosecutor to try cases before the
Sandiganbayan and this would likewise mean
authority to investigate and prosecute cases
before the regular courts
There is a concurrence of jurisdiction between
the OMB and similarly representative agencies
of government, such as the DOJ, over cases
filed in regular courts (MTC, RTC) involving lowranking officers. High-ranking officers are within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
If the charges filed before the regular courts has
nothing to do with the official functions of the
public officer, there is no need for the prior
authority from the OMB.

Honasan vs. DOJ Panel , 04/13/04

Facts: This is with regard to the Oakwood Mutiny
were Honasan was allegedly involved as the
mastermind. SO Honasan was indeed charged. He
was investigated by a panel constituted by the DOJ
Sec. And he claimed that the DOJ does not have
authority to investigate him because he is a senator
with a salary grade 31 therefore, the case falls within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and
therefore it is the OMB that has jurisdiction to
investigate.
HELD: It is really a case of concurrent jurisdiction
between OMB and DOJ in the matter of conducting
Preliminary Investigation. But where the charge is
office related involving a high ranking government
official, the law confers to the OMB the authority to
take over at any stage of the proceeding.

Cases on OMB Jurisdiction:

Deloso vs. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545

DOJ Panel is not precluded

investigating 1the
Lara :-) | from
4-manresa
case, but if the case falls under exclusive jurisdiction
of Sandiganbayan, then OMB may in exercise of its

Admin Review 2011

primary jurisdiction take over at any stage the

investigation of such case.

Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 46

Orcullo vs. Gervacio, 314 SCRA 452

Facts: In the matter of alleged issuance of

falsification of cert. of service by Judge Maceda.

Facts:
Agraft case was filed against councilor
Orcullo for allegedly non payment of her salaries
and according to her it caused undue injury to her
that is why she filed a graft case.

HELD: Where the charge or complaint arises from

the discharge of administrative duties such as the
act ofMaceda in issuing a false cert of service, any
criminal complaint filed before the OMB ought to be
dismissed and referred to the SC for the prior
determination by the latter of a possible violation by
the member of the judiciary.

HELD: A money claim against a councilor is w/in

jurisdiction of court, not the OMB. And if the money
claim is against the city government therefore it
should be lodged before the SanggunianPanglusod
because of its authority to pass an appropriation
ordinance.

Caoibes vs. Alumbres, 07/19/01

1. Impeachable Officials

The parties are both judges. They fought each other

and had a fist fight because they were claiming that
they have the right to a particular table. One of the
party filed a case before the ombudsman and the
OMB had to dismiss the case because of the earlier
pronouncement of the court and referred the case
before the SC.

In re: Raul M. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771

Fuentes vs. Ombudsman, 368 SCRA 36

Because they have to be impeached first before a

case may be filed against them.

Judge Fuentes issued an order of garnishment over

a government fund and so when he was directed by
the OMB to file his answer. Fuentes went to the SC
and The SC enjoined the OMB so OMB had to
dismiss the criminal charge filed against him.

Who are not subject to OMB Disciplinary
Authority?

OMB vs. Mojica, 452 SCRA 714

Facts: Private respondent here is the deputy
ombudsman for the Visayas, he was charged
criminally and administratively by his own employees
and he claimed that he is an impeachable officer
therefore OMB has no jurisdiction

Under the RPC, the crime rendering an unjust

judgment , the SC said that there must first be a
prior determination by the competent body, either by
the court in an admin case or in a petition for
certiorari to the effect that there is in fact a
commission of this offense before the OMB may
take cognizance of this case.

HELD: Constitution makes mention only of the

Ombudsman and made no mention of the Deputy
hence a deputy ombudsman is not an impeachable
officer.

Garcia vs. Miro, 582 SCRA 127 (2009)

It sets aside the earlier ruling of the court in Caoibes
vs. Alumbres.

2. Members of Congress (Sec. 16, Art. Vl)

- becasue the constitution recognizes the authority
of each house of Congress to discipline its
members for disorderly behavior, with the
concurrence of two-thirds of the members, the
house may sanction dismissal or suspension.
3. Judiciary (Sec. 6, Art. Vlll) Exclusive jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court to discipline all members and
employees of the Judiciary.

Facts: The municipal trial judge Garcia was involved

in a vehicular accident and so a criminal and
administrative charges were filed against him before
the OMB, a criminal case for murder and grave
abuse of authority and misconduct admin case. But
:-)case
| 4-manresa
the OMB referred theLara
admin
to the judiciary.1



In the matter of the criminal case, the OMB
proceeded with the conduct PI for murder. In fact,
after due proceedings, an Information was filed by
the OMB for Homicide. So this judge went to the SC.

Admin Review 2011

CSC vs. Sojor, 05/22/08
Cases on Preventive Suspension
Meaning of phrase under his authority in RA 6770:

HELD: It is not a office related case and therefore

the OMB has authority to take cognizance of the
criminal case and conduct or proceed with the PI.

Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207

Facts: This case filed against the Mayor of Cebu
Garcia who entered into a contract a few days
before the election, and he entered into a vitiated
contract with the supplier of Asphalt. So one of the
defenses raised by Garcia was that he is not under
the authority of the OMB because the phrase under
the OMB Act under his authority refers to only the
officers and employees in the office of the
Ombudsman.

Formal Administrative Investigation

Complainant must file aVerified written complaint
shall be accompanied by Certificate of Non-Forum
Shopping (Rule III, Sec. 3, AO No. 07).
Concurrent Jurisdiction
Laxina, Sr. vs. Ombudsman, 471 SCRA 544

HELD: This phrase applies to any public officer

whether elective or appointive if such officer or
employee is the subject of investigation on the basis
of a complaint validly filed before the office of the
ombudsman. The moment a criminal or admin
complaint is filed w/the OMB, the respondent is
deemed to be in his authority & he can proceed to
determine whether said respondent should be
placed under preventive suspension.

Facts: Barangay Captain Laxina was charge with

grave misconduct with the Ombudsman. He fully and
actively participated and filed the necessary
pleading. He did not disclosed that there is a
pending administrative proceeding of the same
nature against him before the Sanggunian. When
the decision came out adverse to him, he was
dismissed in service. And then he claim for the first
time that there is a similar proceeding involving
same case and pleaded violation of due processs.

Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 233 SCRA

311

HELD: SC held that there is no violation because he

actively participated in the proceeding before the
ombudsman. Also, this is a case of concurrent
jurisdiction so the rule is, whichever court takes
cognizance first shall be to the exclusion of all other
equally competent tribunal.

Facts: Then V-mayor of Makati Yabut was charged

administratively because he punched this American
who made a dirty finger sign to him. The guy filed an
admin case for misconduct and during the pendency
of the admin proceeding Yabut was already placed
under administrative proceeding. And he served the
preventive suspension, he argued that since the
penalty was already imposed, he already served the
penalty because of his service of the preventive
suspension.

Referral of certain complaints to the proper

disciplinary authority (Sec. 23(2), RA 6770)
OMBUDSMAN ACT

The Ombudsman may refer in cases of

concurrent jurisdiction. A matter of discretion on
the part of the Ombudsman.

HELD: Preventive suspension period cannot be

credited to whatever penalty that may be meted out.
These are two different concepts.

Magna Carta Act for Public School Teachers (RA

4670)

A case of concurrent jurisdiction although DECS

has primary authority.

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 646

Higher Education Modernization Act (RA 8282)



Amy a preventive suspension be issued even before
the order requiring the respondent to file his
answer? YES. There is no need for the joinder of
issues.

Admin Review 2011

its own rules of procedure. Sec. 18 of RA 6770

also provides for the same power.

Appeal from a decision of the Ombudsman

Being a mere order for preventive suspension, the

questioned OMB order was validly issued even w/o
a full blown hearing & the formal presentation of
evidence by the parties. There is here no violation of
due process.

OMB vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 718

Power to preventively suspend is granted only to the
Ombudsman & Deputy Ombudsmen, and not the
Special Prosecutor. Although substantially equal in
their respective functions, those occupying the same
rank do not necessarily have the same powers nor
perform the same functions. Again, a special
prosecutor cannot issue preventive suspension.

For administrative cases, the appeal should be

taken to the CA within 10 days from receipt of
the adverse decision of the OMB, as provided
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

For criminal cases, a MFR is filed with the OMB

within 5 days from receipt of the decision. The
appeal, thereafter, should be taken before the
SC under Rule 65 which means it should be
based on grave abuse of discretion

Administrative Adjudication, how conducted (AO No.

17). Filing of pleadings/ position papers/ Clarificatory
hearings (discretionary)

Effect of filing appeal:

Non-litigious ; technicalities of law, procedure and

evidence are not strictly applied.

General Rule:
The filing of an appeal in
administrative law will stay the decision

AO 17. OMB RULES and PROCEDURE.

ExceptionS: If the law itself, the Constitution or

the implementing rules as allowed by law allow
the execution of decision pending appeal

Section 5. Administrative adjudication; How

conducted.
a. If the complaint is docketed as an administrative
case, the respondent shall be furnished with a
copy of the affidavits and other evidence
submitted by the complainant, and shall be
ordered to file his counter-affidavits and other
evidence in support of his defense, within ten
(10) days from receipt thereof, together with
proof of service of the same on the complainant
who may file his reply- affidavit within ten (10)
days from receipt of the counter-affidavit of the
respondent;

CSC Law and EO 292, as applied to appointive

public officers, provide that the decision is
executory despite appeal. This is an exception
of the rule.
Section 68 of the LGC provides that the appeal
shall not stay the decision. In the event that the
party who appeals wins the appeal, he shall be
considered as placed under preventive
suspension and he is entitled to the payment of
compensation and other benefits due him during
such period of preventive suspension which was
imposed originally as a penalty

b. If the hearing officer finds no sufficient cause to
warrant further proceedings on the basis of the
affidavits and other evidence submitted by the
parties, the complaint may be dismissed.
Otherwise, he shall issue an Order (or Orders)
for any of the following purposes:

NB: Lapid and Liggayu rulings providing that

suspension pending appeal cannot be executed
have been abandoned by AO-17 published on
Nov. 3, 2003. It provides that an appeal shall
not stop the decision from being executory

Basis of AO-17 is the Constitution which

recognizes the power of the OMB to promulgate

Lara :-) | 4-manresa

1. To direct the parties to file, within ten (10)

days from receipt of the Order, their

Admin Review 2011

respective verified position papers.

The
position papers shall contain only those
charges, defenses and other claims
contained in the affidavits and pleadings
filed by the parties. Any additional relevant
affidavits and/or documentary evidence may
be attached by the parties to their position
papers. On the basis of the position papers,
affidavits and other pleadings filed, the
Hearing Officer may consider the case
submitted for resolution.

only rebutting evidence with their Reply

Position Papers.

2. If the Hearing Officer decides not to consider
the case submitted for resolution after the
filing of the position papers, affidavits and
pleadings, to conduct a clarificatory hearing
regarding facts material to the case as
appearing in the respective position papers,
affidavits and pleadings filed by the parties.
At this stage, he may, at his discretion and
for the purpose of determining whether there
is a need for a formal trial or hearing, ask
clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or
information; In the conduct of clarificatory
hearings, the parties shall be afforded the
opportunity to be present but without the
right to examine or crossexamine the party/
witness being questioned. The parties may
be allowed to raise clarificatory questions
and elicit answers form the opposing party/
witness, which shall be coursed through the
Hearing Officer who shall determine whether
or not the proposed questions are necessary
and relevant. In such cases, the Hearing
Officer shall ask the question in such
manner and phrasing as he may deem
appropriate.

c)

3. If the Hearing Officer finds no necessity for

further proceedings on the basis of the
clarificatory hearings, affidavits, pleadings
and position papers filed by the parties, he
shall issue an Order declaring the case
submitted for resolution.
The Hearing
Officer may also require the parties to
simultaneously submit, within ten (10) days
from receipt of the Order, their Reply
Position Papers.
The parties, if new
affidavits and/or exhibits are attached to the
other partys Position Paper, may submit

4.If the Hearing Officer finds the need to conduct

a formal investigation on the basis of the
clarificatory hearings, pleadings, affidavits
and the position papers filed by the parties,
an Order shall be issued for the purpose. In
the same Order, the parties shall be required
to file within ten (10) days from receipt of the
Order their respective pre-trial briefs which
shall contain, among others, the nature of
the charge(s) and defenses, proposed
stipulation of facts, a definition of the issues,
identification and marking of exhibits,
limitation of witnesses, and such other
matters as would expedite the proceedings.
The parties are not allowed to introduce
matters in the pre-trial briefs which are not
covered by the position papers, affidavits
and pleadings filed and served prior to
issuance of the Order directing the conduct
of a formal investigation.
The conduct of formal proceedings by the Office
of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall
be non-litigious in nature.
Subject to the
requirements of due process in administrative
cases, the technicalities of law, procedure and
evidence shall not strictly apply thereto. The
Hearing Officer may avail himself of all
reasonable means to ascertain speedily the
facts of the case. He shall take full control of the
proceedings, with proper regard to the right of
the parties to due process, and shall limit the
presentation of evidence to matters relevant to
the issue(s) before him and necessary for a just
and speedy disposition of the case.

Lara :-) | 4-manresa



d) In the conduct of formal administrative
investigation, the Hearing Officer shall set the
case for continuous trial. The parties shall be
notified at least ten (10) days before the date
of the initial hearing. Failure of any or both of
the parties to appear at the scheduled
hearing(s) is not necessarily a cause for the
dismissal of the complaint.
A party who
appears may be allowed to present his
evidence in the absence of the adverse party
who was duly notified of the hearing;
however, if the absent party is able to show
that there is a valid cause for his absence, he
shall be afforded the opportunity to crossexamine the witness (es) presented during his
absence.
In case of two (2) successive
unjustified non-appearances of any party in
the proceedings, it shall be the option of the
party who is present to submit the case for
resolution on the basis of the records of the
case and the evidence so far presented;

Admin Review 2011

g) The following pleading shall be deemed
prohibited in the cases covered by these
Rules:
1. Motion to dismiss, although any ground
justifying the dismissal of the case may be
discussed in the counter-affidavit/
pleadings of the party;
2. Motion for bill of particulars; and
3. Dilatory motions including, but not limited
to, motions for extension of time, for
postponement, second motions for
reconsideration and/or re-investigation.
Said pleadings shall be stricken off the records
of the case.

Parties are allowed the assistance of counsel; due

process clause does not encompass right to be
assisted by counsel (Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282
SCRA 125)

e) Only witnesses whose affidavits have been

submitted by the parties and served on the
adverse party prior to the issuance of the
Order directing the conduct of a formal
investigation may be allowed to testify at the
hearing.

Finality and Execution of Administrative

Decision
Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753

The affidavit of any witness shall constitute his

direct testimony, subject to cross-examination,
re-direct examination and re-cross examination.
Unless the testimony of the witness involves
newly discovered evidence, the Hearing Officer
may not allow the presentation of witnesses
whose affidavits have not been filed by the
parties and served on the adverse party prior to
the issuance of the Order to conduct formal
investigation.
If a witness whose testimony
involves newly discovered evidence is allowed
to testify, the adverse party shall have the right
to cross-examine such witness and to submit
rebuttal evidence, if any, relevant to said newly
discovered evidence;

Facts: The imposition by the Ombudsman against

Alba was the penalty of suspension of 1 month.
Under Sec. 27 of RA 6770, the decision is final,
executory and unappealable if respondent is
acquitted, or penalty is reprimand, suspension of not
more than one month, or fine equivalent to one
month salary. The petitioner contended that this
provision is unconstitutional because it violates due
process as he is not allowed to appeal such
decision.
HELD: This provision is constitutional & not
tantamount to deprivation of property without due
process of law. Essence of due process is simply
opportunity to be heard. In fact here, Alba, in the
admin charge was given the full opportunity to be
heard and in fact he submitted his answer.

f) The parties shall be allowed the assistance of

counsel and the right to the production of
evidence thru the compulsory process of
subpoena and subpoena duces tecum;

Also, the right to appeal is not a natural right nor part

Lara :-) | 4-manresa
1
of due process.



TAKE NOTE: In all other cases, the appeal from the
OMB decision is to the Court of Appeals on verified
petition for review under Rule 43 of the rules of court
within 15 days from receipt of notice.

not a petition for review under Rule 43, before the

Court of Appeals.
In this case, an LTO employee complained that he
was denied due process because she was not given
a copy of the testimony of the affidavit of the
complainants witness.

Reyes vs. Belisario, 596 SCRA 31

Appeal in a petition for review under Rule 43 is not
allowed in an exoneration situation under the
Ombudsman Act because precisely the law provides
for the finality of the decision.

Remember in this case SC said that there was no

violation because he was given an opportunity to be
heard ON APPEAL. So, since she was given a copy
of the complainants affidavit attached to the order
ON APPEAL but she refused to comply so there
was no violation.

Facts: In the matter of the institution of the

administrative action for abuse of authority against
the administrator of the LGU. This admin case was
filed against him because of his issuance of his
order reassigning those employees who have earlier
filed a graft case against him before the office of the
OMB.

Penalty
The penalty of dismissal from the service carries
with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits, and the perpetual
disqualification for reemployment in the government
service.

After due proceedings, the OMB dismissed the case

filed against Reyes. Aggrieved complainants filed an
appeal under Rule 43.

Exception: entitled to leave credits earned.

ISSUE: What is the remedy of the aggrieved

Complainant? Is the procedure taken correct?

Effect of Appeal on Administrative Decision

An appeal shall not stop the decision from being
executory. In case penalty is suspension or removal
and respondent wins the appeal, he shall be
considered as being under preventive suspension
and he shall be paid the salary (OMB Administrative
Order No. 17 dated 09/07/03).

Take note: Under the law, where the case id

dismissed or the imposition is 1 month etc., the case
is already final and executory.
HELD: SC held that whenever there is grave abuse
of discretion committed by the tribunal such as this
case, where the OMB dismiss the admin case
despite the fact that there is a ruling made by the
CSC that the assignment order constitute
constructive dismissal so the remedy is a petition for
certiorari under rule 65 grounded on grave abuse of
discretion.

A decision of the Ombudsman shall be executed as

a matter of course. Failure or refusal to comply with
the OMB Order shall be a ground for disciplinary
action.
Immediate Execution of Administrative
Decisions

Here, SC liberally applied Rules of Court &

recognized respondents CA petition under Rule 43
as having the effect of a Rule 65 petition grounded
on the grave abuse of discretion committed by OMB.

Buencamino vs. CA, 4/12/07

Facts: Buencamino was charged with abuse of
authority and was found guilty and so the OMB
imposed the penalty of suspension for six months.

Ruivivar vs. Ombudsman, 565 SCRA 324

The remedy from the Ombudsmans decisions in
administrative case imposing only the penalties of
public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not
more than 30 days, or a fine equivalent to 1 months
salary, which decisions are final and unappealable,
is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65,

Admin Review 2011

HELD: Decision of OMB imposing six months

suspension without pay upon Mayor Buencamino for
Lara
:-) | 4-manresa
1
abuse of authority is
immediately
executor under
Admin Order No. 17 of the OMB.

Admin Review 2011

EX: For the commission of the crime of physical
injuries or crimes against persons, it is not office
relates hence, there is no need for the approval of
the OMB for the filing of this case or the dismissal of
such case.

Ombudsman vs. Samaniego, 10/05/10

OMB decision is immediately executory pending
appeal & may not be stayed by the filing of appeal or
the issuance of injunctive writ (AO # 17). This
provision is a special rule that prevails over the
provisions of the Rules of Court (Sec. 12 Rule
43) w/c provides: The appeal shall not stay the
judgment,final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct
otherwise or has issued a TRO upon such terms as
it may deem just.

But if office related there is a need for the OMB for

he approval or dismissal of the case as so
recommended by the prosecutor of the Dept. of
justice.
RECALL: The findings of facts of admin authorities
are not only accorded great respect but also finality.
This same rule applies to the finding of facts of the
OMB.

AUTHORITY of the OMB in CRIMINAL CASES

Preliminary Investigation

Ocampo vs. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725

Take note:
The Court, recognizing the investigatory
&prosecutory powers granted to the OMB by the
Constitution & for practicality, will not interfere nor
pass upon its findings. It will not review the exercise
of discretion by prosecutors each time they decide to
file an information in court or dismiss a complaint.
Unless of course there is a finding of grave abuse of
discretion.

1. OMB retains control and supervision if the

charge vs. the public officer is related to his
office.
2.

DOJ Prosecutors rule with finality if the

charge is not related to office.

DOJ prosecutors may investigate cases against

public officials in their capacity as either Deputized
Ombudsman Prosecutors or regular prosecutors.
However, the choice has been made in favor of the
former capacity (as Deputized OMB Prosecutor) in
the OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-01, which
together with AO No. 08, provides for automatic
deputization. In such capacity they can already
proceed with the conduct of PI without the need of
written authority.

Cases on Preliminary Investigation:

Mamburao vs. Ombudsman, 344 SCRA 818
Petitioners may not compel OMB to order the
production of certain documents if in his judgment
such are not necessary to establish the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
Villanueva vs. Ople, 475 SCRA 542

However, where the act allegedly committed by the

public officer or the offense has connection to the
discharge of public functions, therefore whatever
resolutions of the prosecutor must be submitted to
the OMB for approval.

Court cannot compel testimonies of witnesses

&production of documents thru the issuance of
subpoenas, if in OMBs sound judgment, these
pieces of evidence are not necessary to establish
probable cause.

But this rule is not followed when the offense

committed by the public officer has nothing to do
with his public functions. In other words, the
prosecutor, on such offense can already rule with
finality even without the imprimatur of the OMB.
In essence, this circular provides that the power of
control and supervision by the OMB is only over
cases committed by public officers in relation to their
office.

PCGG vs. Desierto, 01/22/07

However, where there appears grave abuse of
discretion on the part of OMB in dismissing the case,
the Court can reverse the OMB dismissal & direct
the filing of information.
Lara :-) | 4-manresa
1

Admin Review 2011

Facts: This involves the cases filed by PCGG

against the Marcoses. What happened here was
that, despite the evidence submitted by the PCGG
such as the records obtained by PCGG when the
Marcoses fled consisting of the shares of stock. And
there was also this affidavit executed by a witness to
the effect that there was aa fund transfer to this
shares of stocks to the MArcoses, still the OMB
dismissed the case.

nominal complainant, Special Prosecutor Tagaan

already resigned.

HELD: There was the commission of grave abuse of

discretion on the part of the OMB in dismissing such
case and so the court itself reversed the dismissal of
the OMB and directed the filing of information
against the group.

Also, the Duterte ruling does not apply because,

unlike in the Duterte ruling, here, Garcia was
required to submit his answer on the basis not only
of the COA report but also there were affidavits
made by the COA Auditor apart from the sworn
statement of the Prosecutor investigator
Tagaan.Where the PI is based on COA Audit Report
and affidavits of auditors there is no violation of this
rule.

HELD: SC here said that this particular issue is of

no moment because the real complainant here is not
Tagaan but the State as represented by the COA
and the OMB. That the nominal complainant already
resigned is not fatal. The real complainant is the
State, represented by OMB & COA

Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721

Facts: Sometime in Nov. 1990, the City govt thru
Duterte and De Guzman were both charged in
connection with the negotiated contract they entered
into involving the award to the special systems plus
for the project of the city government in the amount
of 11 million and this was on the basis of a COA
special report. This COA special audit report was
submitted to the OMB. Here, on the basis of this
special report of the COA, the OMB directed Duterte
et al. to file their comment. Eventually, the decision
of the OMB is for the filing of the graft case before
the SB.

Effect on OMB re COAs Non-Finding of Liability

Take Note: It may happen that, the transactions
entered by the public officer or government office
were passed upon and approved by COA. What is
the effect of such approval or clearance of the
transaction by the COA, does it preclude the OMB
from conducting the necessary investigation?
Aguinaldo vs. Sandiganbayan, 265 SCRA 121
COAs approval of a
government
officials
disbursements only relates to the administrative
aspect of the matter of his accountability but it does
not foreclose the Ombudsmans authority
to
investigate and determine whether there is a
crime to be prosecuted for which such official is
answerable. While COA may regard the official to
have substantially complied with its accounting
rules, this fact is not sufficient to dismiss the criminal
case. (penal and anti-graft laws)

HELD: A COA Special Audit Report is not equivalent

to the affidavits required under the OMB Rules of
Procedure for the conduct of PI. When he was
asked to file a comment thereto, he was already
subjected to PI without being so informed. So, this is
not consistent with what is provided under the rules
of ptocesure under the OMB because the
requirement here is that there must be a SWORN
accusatory statement or affidavit, there was none in
this case, there were simply directed to file a
comment on the basis of a Special Audit Report of
COA. SC directed the dismissal of the case because
of the blatant violation of this procedure.

Dimayuga vs. OMB, 20 July 2006

Garcia vs. Primo, 397 SCRA 41

Facts: City Mayor Garcia was the subject of an audit
COA report. On this basis, together with the
affidavits of COA auditors, the respondent public
officers were directed to file their answer. One of the
issues raised here by the Mayor was that, the

The fact that petitioners accounts and vouchers had

passed in audit by COA is no ground to enjoin the
OMBs fiscal from conducting PI to determine their
criminal liability forLara
malversation.
A finding1 of
:-) | 4-manresa
probable cause by the OMB does not derive its

Admin Review 2011

veracity from the COA findings but from the OMBs

independent determination .

designated as OIC by then president GMA.

President filed an appeal with the CA under Rule 43.

Remedies from a probable cause finding by the

OMB

Issue: What is the proper remedy here?

HELD: Where the aggrieved party questions the
OMBs finding of lack of probable cause, the remedy
is to file certiorari under Rule 65 to be filed with the
Supreme Court & not with CA

Only (1) one MR or reinvestigation is allowed within

five (5) days from notice of adverse decision.
Where the information has already been filed in
Court, it should be with leave of court, the court
ought to authorize the conduct of reinvestigation.

Court of Appeals; No Authority Over OMB

Resolutions in Criminal Cases.

(Kuizon vs. Desierto, 354 SCRA 158).

Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321

Even if there is already an Information filed in court

prior to the receipt by the respondent of the adverse
decision, it does not affect the validity of the
information. The validity of information is not affected
by lack of notice of adverse resolution to the
respondent. It is allowed under the rules of OMB.
The reason for this is the possibility of flight by the
respondent. There is still no denial of due process
because precisely the law allows certain remedies
such as the filing of a motion for reinvestigation
before the trial court where the information is filed.

The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and

decisions of the OMB in administrative disciplinary
cases only it cannot review the orders or decisions
of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative
cases.
Facts: There was a criminal case filed by the OMB
before the RTC against employee ONG of the
POEA. What this employee did was to secure a
restraining order before the CA. CA directed the
withdrawal of the crim case before the RTC against
respondent.

Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116

HELD: Since the CA has no jurisdiction over

decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, its
ruling directing the withdrawal of the criminal case
filed by the Ombudsman before the RTC against
respondent POEA employee Fung is void.

The filing of MR/reinvestigation does not prevent the

immediate filing of information in court.
Mendoza-Arce vs. Ombudsman, 380 SCRA 325

Forfeiture Proceedings for ill-gotten wealth

Remedy of aggrieved party from resolution of OMB

finding probable cause in the criminal case, when
tainted w/grave abuse of discretion, is to file an
original action for certiorari under Rule 65 with the
Supreme Court and not w/CA. CA does not have
jurisdiction over criminal cases lodged before the
OMB. The authority of the CA is only with admin
case.

Rep. vs. Sandiganbayan, 237 SCRA 242

PCGG is empowered to bring proceedings for
forfeiture of property allegedly unlawfully acquired
before Feb. 25, 1986 (date when the Marcoses left),
while power to investigate ill-gotten wealth acquired
after said date is vested in the Ombudsman.

Estrada vs. Desierto, 445 SCRA 655

Facts: Estrada filed a case for usurpation of
legislative functions against deputy commissioner of
the BIR on the ground that she was not authorize to
issue this writ of garnishment on the foreign currency
deposit of petitioner Estrada. Nonetheless, OMB
dismissed the case for usurpation of legislative
functions on the ground that she was in fact

Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, 625 SCRA 13

The Ombudsman is without authority to initiate

forfeiture proceedings for recovery of ill-gotten or
unexplained wealth amassed prior to 2/25/86.
However, the Ombudsman has authority to
Lara :-) | 4-manresa
1
investigate cases for forfeiture or recovery of such illgotten wealth amassed even before said date
pursuant to his general investigatory or prosecutorial



power under Sec. 15(1) of RA 6770. Again, we have
to make this classification on this provision that the
authority of the OMB is only insofar as the amassed
wealth has nothing to do with the public officers
connection with the Marcoses.

Admin Review 2011

HELD: SC ruled that COA was only asserting its
constitutional mandate. COA can disallow extension
of NHAs foreign consultants services for being an
unnecessary expense of public funds. Not even
COA can deviate from its constitutional mandate to
disallow unnecessary or unconscionable expenses.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA)

Cruz vs. COA, 368 SCRA 85

Constitutional mandate (Art. lX-D, Sec.2)

Facts: There was an order issued by COA making a

determination as to who should be entitled to the
social amelioration benefits given by the Sugar
Regulatory Administration Employees. COA made
the rule that those employees of the Sugar
Regulatory Administration who are hired after Oct.
31, 1989, are not entitled to this benefit.

1. Examine, audit & settle all accounts pertaining to

revenue & receipts of, & expenditures or uses of
funds & property owned or held in trust by the
Government.
2. Promulgate rules for prevention & disallowance
of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant
or unconscionable expenditures or uses of
government funds and property.

HELD: SC ruled that COA acted beyond its powers

and abused its authority because the law
(standardization law), does not make such
distinction.COA classification as to who were entitled
to the social amelioration benefits & excluding
therefrom those SRA employees hired after 10/31/89
has no legal basis. Going back to the rule that the
admin regulations must not be inconsistent with the
law.

COAs jurisdiction covers all government offices,

bureaus & agencies, including GOCCs & even nongovernment entities enjoying subsidy from the
government.
DBP vs. COA, 373 SCRA 356
COA does not have sole & exclusive jurisdiction to
examine & audit government banks. The Central
Bank has concurrent jurisdiction to examine audit
government banks, but COA audit prevails over that
of the CB since the COA is the constitutionally
mandated auditor of government banks. Also, the
CB is devoid of authority to allow or disallow
expenditures of government banks since this
function belongs exclusively to the COA.

Take Note: COA exercises quasi-judicial functions

only as regards disciplinary cases of their
employees. But in all others, like a resolution from
them disallowing a claim or transaction it is not
exercising quasi-judicial functions. It is a matter or
interpretation of the law.
In fact, in such cases, under the government
auditing code, the remedies are that, the agency has
a period of 6 months.SO once it became a
disallowance, it may be appealed to the regional
director, then from there, it may be elevated further
to the Chairman and then to the Court.

COA cannot disallow the payment of back wages to

employees, which had been decreed pursuant to a
final CSC decision (Cagatin vs. COA, 21 March
2000).

PCGG

NHA vs. COA, 226 SCRA 65

Sec. 4(b) of EO 1 w/c exempts PCGG members &

staff from testifying or producing evidence in any
judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding
concerning PCGG matters is unconstitutional. It
violates Congress power of inquiry (Sec. 21, Art. Vl),
the principle of public accountability (Sec. 1, Art. Xl),
policy of full public Lara
disclosure
of all transactions
:-) | 4-manresa
1
involving public interest (Sec.28, Art. ll) and the right

Facts: In the matter of this transaction entered into

by the NHA with a foreign German entity AFW. And
there was this renewal of the foreign loan given to
NHA by this German entity on the premise of the
extension of the Foreign Consultants services.COA
disallowed the extension of the foreign consultant
services.



to information (Sec. 7, Art. lll) (Sabio vs. Chair
Gordon, 504 SCRA 704).

Admin Review 2011

Under the Central Bank Act provides that thru the
Monetary Board, it can order the closure and
stoppage of operations of the bank and place it
under receivership. However there are requirement
for this resort to receivership by the Monetary Board.

Gen. Ramas could not be deemed to have waived

any defect in the filing by PCGG of the forfeiture
petition by filing an answer w/counterclaim. Parties
may raise lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the
proceeding.

Prerequisites to MB action to appoint receiver:

1. There must be an examination made by the
examination department of the Central Bank;

Also, Ramas position as Commanding General of

the Phil. Army is not sufficient. Whenever the PCGG
conducts an investigation, there must be a
connection, the connection is that the respondent is
an associate or a crony of the Marcoses who
acquired properties or unlawfully acquired ill-gotten
wealth by reason of such association with the
Marcoses.
(Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 407
SCRA 13).

2. A report made by this examination department to
the CB;

Central Bank
The Central Bank thru the Monetary Board may
close a bank thru the policy of Close now and hear
later even without yet notice. No prior notice and
formal hearing are required.

3. It has adverse findings that continued operations

would only cause further loses.

Reason: If the respondent is informed, there is the

possibility of further and unwarranted dissipation of
bank assets to the prejudice of the depositors and
creditors. SO it is also to protect the depositors,
creditors, stockholders and the public.

The REMEDY of the aggrieved party is to sue the

Central Bank within 10 days from its closure.

CB vs. Triumph Savings Bank, 220 SCRA 536

Actions of the Monetary Board in proceedings on
insolvency are final and executory and may not be
set aside except upon convincing proof that the
action of the Monetary Board in closing the Bank is
plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith.
End! Good Luck!

Lara :-) | 4-manresa