SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., represented by its Managing Dire t!r, "ere#y $%i&&, 's. E(REN "ALOS, et a%.

).R. N!. *+,,*Septe#ber -, ./*/ Executive Order 192 (1987) transferred to the PAB the powers and functions of the Nationa Po ution and !ontro !o""ission provided in #$A$ %9%1& as a"ended '( P$)$ 98*$ +hese e"powered the PAB to ,deter"ine the ocation& "a-nitude& extent& severit(& causes and effects, of water po ution$ A"on- its functions is to ,serve as ar'itrator for the deter"ination of reparation& or restitution of the da"a-es and osses resu tin- fro" po ution$, .n this re-ard& the PAB has the power to conduct hearin-s& i"pose pena ties for vio ation of P$)$ 98*& and issue writs of execution to enforce its orders and decisions$ +he PAB/s fina decisions "a( 'e reviewed '( the !A under #u e *% of the #u es of !ourt$ 0a os& et a had& therefore& an ad"inistrative recourse 'efore fi in- their co"p aint with the re-u ar courts$ +he aws creatin- the PAB and vestin- it with powers are wise$ +he definition of the ter" ,po ution, itse f connotes the need for specia i1ed 2now ed-e and s2i s& technica and scientific& in deter"inin- the presence& the cause& and the effects of po ution$ +hese 2now ed-e and s2i s are not within the co"petence of ordinar( courts$ !onse3uent (& resort "ust first 'e "ade to the PAB& which is the a-enc( possessed of expertise in deter"inin- po ution4re ated "atters$1avvphi +o this extent& the fai ure of 0a os& et a to a e-e in their co"p aint that the( had first ta2en resort to PAB 'efore -oin- to court "eans that the( fai ed to state a cause of action that the #+! cou d act on$ +his warranted the dis"issa of their action$ $HEVRON PHILIPPINES, IN$. 0(!r#er%y $ALTEX PHILIPPINES, IN$.1, 's. BASES $ONVERSION DEVELOPMENT A2THORIT3 and $LAR4 DEVELOPMENT $ORPORATION, ).R. N!. *+5-65 Septe#ber *7, ./*/ 5ection 2 of Executive Order No$ 86 provides the Powers and 7unctions of the ! ar2 )eve op"ent !orporation which sha deter"ine the powers and functions of the !)!$ Pursuant to 5ection 18 of #A 7227& the !)! sha have the specific powers of the Export Processin- 9one Authorit( a"onthose specific powers -ranted to !)! under 5ection * of Presidentia )ecree No$ :: are; xxx (-) +o fix& assess and co ect stora-e char-es and fees& inc udin- renta s for the ease& use or occupanc( of ands& 'ui din-s& structure& warehouses& faci ities and other properties owned and ad"inistered '( the Authorit(< and to fix and co ect the fees and char-es for the issuance of per"its& icenses and the renderin- of services not enu"erated herein& the provisions of aw to the contrar( notwithstandin-< (h) 7or the due and effective exercise of the powers conferred '( aw and to the extend (sic) =extent> re3uisite therefor& to exercise exc usive ?urisdiction and so e po ice authorit( over a areas owned or ad"inistered '( the Authorit($ 7or this purpose& the Authorit( sha have supervision and contro over the 'rin-in- in or ta2in- out of the 9one& inc udin- the "ove"ent therein& of a car-oes& wares& artic es& "achineries& e3uip"ent& supp ies or "erchandise of ever( t(pe and description< xxx Ad"inistrative issuances have the force and effect of aw$ +he( 'enefit fro" the sa"e presu"ption of va idit( and constitutiona it( en?o(ed '( statutes$ +hese two precepts p ace a heav( 'urden upon an( part( assai in- -overn"enta re-u ations$ Petitioner/s p ain a e-ations are si"p ( not enou-h to overco"e the presu"ption of va idit( and reasona' eness of the su'?ect i"position$ P2BLI$ HEARIN) $OMMITTEE O( THE LA)2NA LA4E DEVELOPMENT A2THORIT3 and HON. )ENERAL MANA)ER $ALIXTO $ATA82I9, 's. SM PRIME HOLDIN)S, IN$. . ).R. N!. *+/7,, Septe#ber .., ./*/ .t is true that one of the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is when the issues raised are pure ( e-a $ @owever& that a deter"ination of whether or not the an a-enc( indeed co""itted -rave a'use of discretion in i"posin- fine on respondent wou d necessari ( and inevita' ( touch on the factua issue of whether or not respondent in fact co"p ied with the eff uent standards set under the aw$ 5ince the "atters raised invo ved factua issues& the 3uestioned orders

of such a-enc( shou d have 'een 'rou-ht first 'efore the depart"ent which has ad"inistrative supervision of the a-enc( pursuant to E$O$ No$ 1*9$ DIMSON 0MANILA1, IN$. and PHES$O, IN$, 's. LO$AL :ATER 2TILITIES ADMINISTRATION ).R. N!. *6-676 Septe#ber .., ./*/ The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies re3uires that when an ad"inistrative re"ed( is provided '( aw& re ief "ust 'e sou-ht '( exhaustin- this re"ed( 'efore ?udicia intervention "a( 'e avai ed of$ No recourse can 'e had unti a such re"edies have 'een exhausted& and the specia civi actions a-ainst ad"inistrative officers shou d not 'e entertained if there are superior ad"inistrative officers who cou d -rant re ief$ xxx +he under (in- princip e of the ru e rests on the presu"ption that the ad"inistrative a-enc(& if afforded a co"p ete chance to pass upon the "atter& wi decide the sa"e correct ($ +here are 'oth e-a and practica reasons for this princip e$ +he ad"inistrative process is intended to provide ess expensive and =speedier> so utions to disputes$ Ahere the ena' in- statute indicates a procedure for ad"inistrative review& and provides a s(ste" of ad"inistrative appea & or reconsideration& the courts& for reasons of aw& co"it( and convenience& wi not entertain the case un ess the avai a' e ad"inistrative re"edies have 'een resorted to and the appropriate authorities have 'een -iven an opportunit( to act and correct the errors co""itted in the ad"inistrative foru"$ xxx Accordin- (& the part( with an ad"inistrative re"ed( "ust not "ere ( initiate the prescri'ed ad"inistrative procedure to o'tain re ief& 'ut a so pursue it to its appropriate conc usion 'efore see2in- ?udicia intervention in order to -ive the ad"inistrative a-enc( an opportunit( to decide the "atter '( itse f correct ( and prevent unnecessar( and pre"ature resort to the court$ THE PROVIN$E O( NE)ROS O$$IDENTAL, represented by its )!'ern!r ISIDRO P. 9A3$O, 's. THE $OMMISSIONERS, $OMMISSION ON A2DIT; THE DIRE$TOR, $L2STER IV<VISA3AS; THE RE)IONAL $L2STER DIRE$TORS; and THE PROVIN$IAL A2DITOR, NE)ROS O$$IDENTAL ).R. N!. *-.7+= Septe#ber .-, ./*/ +he Presidents power of general supervision "eans the power of a superior officer to see to it that su'ordinates perfor" their functions accordin- to aw$ +his is distin-uished fro" the President/s power of contro which is the power to a ter or "odif( or set aside what a su'ordinate officer had done in the perfor"ance of his duties and to su'stitute the ?ud-"ent of the President over that of the su'ordinate officer$ +he power of contro -ives the President the power to revise or reverse the acts or decisions of a su'ordinate officer invo vin- the exercise of discretion$ 5ince BCDs are su'?ect on ( to the power of -enera supervision of the President& the President/s authorit( is i"ited to seein- to it that ru es are fo owed and aws are faithfu ( executed$ +he President "a( on ( point out that ru es have not 'een fo owed 'ut the President cannot a( down the ru es& neither does he have the discretion to "odif( or rep ace the ru es$ +hus& the -rant of additiona co"pensation i2e hospita i1ation and hea th care insurance 'enefits in the present case does not need the approva of the President to 'e va id$ SSN 's. ANTI<TERRORISM $O2N$IL, et a%, ).R. N!. *+-77. 4M2, et a%. 's. ERMITA, et a%. ).R. N!. *+-77= BA3AN, et a%. 's. ARRO3O, et a%. ).R. N!. *+-7-* 4ARAPATAN, et a%. 's. ARRO3O ).R. N!. *+--,/ IBP, et a%. 's. AT$ ).R. N!. *+,*7+ BA3AN<ST 's. ARRO3O, et a%. ).R. N!. *+,=6* O t!ber 7, ./*/ !ertiorari does not ie a-ainst respondents who do not exercise ?udicia or 3uasi4?udicia functions$ 5ection 1& #u e :8 of the #u es of !ourt$ Bocus standi or e-a standin- has 'een defined as a

persona and su'stantia interest in a case such that the part( has sustained or wi sustain direct in?ur( as a resu t of the -overn"enta act that is 'ein- cha en-ed$ A part( who assai s the constitutiona it( of a statute "ust have a direct and persona interest$ .t "ust show not on ( that the aw or an( -overn"enta act is inva id& 'ut a so that it sustained or is in i""ediate dan-er of sustainin- so"e direct in?ur( as a resu t of its enforce"ent& and not "ere ( that it suffers there'( in so"e indefinite wa($ .t "ust show that it has 'een or is a'out to 'e denied so"e ri-ht or privi e-e to which it is awfu ( entit ed or that it is a'out to 'e su'?ected to so"e 'urdens or pena ties '( reason of the statute or act co"p ained of$ 7or a concerned part( to 'e a owed to raise a constitutiona 3uestion& it "ust show that (1) it has persona ( suffered so"e actua or threatened in?ur( as a resu t of the a e-ed ( i e-a conduct of the -overn"ent& (2) the in?ur( is fair ( tracea' e to the cha en-ed action& and (%) the in?ur( is i2e ( to 'e redressed '( a favora' e action$ (e"phasis and underscorinsupp ied$) Atty. A%i e Od >ig?e<B!nd! 's. Tan Ti!ng Bi! ).R. N!. *-667., O t!ber 6, ./*/ +he !ourt ru ed in the ne-ative$ A pre i"inar( investi-ation is not a 3uasi4?udicia proceedin- since ,the prosecutor in a pre i"inar( investi-ation does not deter"ine the -ui t or innocence of the accused$, A prosecutor does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions$ Pre i"inar( investi-ation is "ere ( in3uisitoria & and is often the on ( "eans of discoverin- the persons who "a( 'e reasona' ( char-ed of a cri"e and to ena' e the prosecutor to prepare his co"p aint or infor"ation$ .t is not a tria of the case on the "erits and has no purpose except that of deter"ininwhether a cri"e has 'een co""itted and whether there is pro'a' e cause to 'e ieve that the accused is -ui t( thereof$ Ahi e the prosecutor "a2es that deter"ination& he cannot 'e said to 'e actin- as a 3uasi4court& for it is the courts& u ti"ate (& that pass ?ud-"ent on the accused& not the prosecutor$ LAND BAN4 O( THE PHILIPPINES, 's. )LENN 3. ES$ANDOR, Resp!ndents. ).R. N!. *+*6-7 O t!ber **, ./*/ .t is sett ed that the deter"ination of ?ust co"pensation is a ?udicia function$ +he )A#/s and va uation is on ( pre i"inar( and is not& '( an( "eans& fina and conc usive upon the andowner or an( other interested part($ .n the exercise of their functions& the courts sti have the fina sa( on what the a"ount of ?ust co"pensation wi 'e$ A thou-h the )A# is vested with pri"ar( ?urisdiction under the !o"prehensive A-rarian #efor" Baw (!A#B) of 1988 to deter"ine in a pre i"inar( "anner the reasona' e co"pensation for ands ta2en under the !A#P& such deter"ination is su'?ect to cha en-e in the courts$ +he !A#B vests in the #+!s& sittin- as 5A!s& ori-ina and exc usive ?urisdiction over a petitions for the deter"ination of ?ust co"pensation$ +his "eans that the #+!s do not exercise "ere appe ate ?urisdiction over ?ust co"pensation disputes$ Ae have he d that the ?urisdiction of the #+!s is not an( ess ,ori-ina and exc usive, 'ecause the 3uestion is first passed upon '( the )A#$ +he proceedin-s 'efore the #+! are not a continuation of the ad"inistrative deter"ination$ .ndeed& a thou-h the aw "a( provide that the decision of the )A# is fina and unappea a' e& sti a resort to the courts cannot 'e forec osed on the theor( that courts are the -uarantors of the e-a it( of ad"inistrative action$ HI9ON, 's. TRB, et a%. ).R. N!. *66,*/ MAR$OS, et a%. 's. TRB ).R. N!. *6,,*+ )4M, et a%. 's. TRB ).R. N!. *+565/ TRB 's. 3PISP ).R. N!. *-57,, O t!ber *,, ./*/ +hat the ad"inistrative a-encies "a( 'e vested with the authorit( to -rant ad"inistrative franchises or concessions over the operation of pu' ic uti ities under their respective ?urisdiction and re-u ation&

without need of the -rant of a separate e-is ative franchise& has 'een uphe d '( the 5upre"e !ourt x x x$ Dnder the 1987 !onstitution& !on-ress has an exp icit authorit( to -rant a pu' ic uti it( franchise$ @owever& it "a( va id ( de e-ate its e-is ative authorit(& under the power of su'ordinate e-is ation& to issue franchises of certain pu' ic uti ities to so"e ad"inistrative a-encies$ +he reason for the va idit( of su'ordinate e-is ation is that such de e-ation of e-is ative power to an ad"inistrative a-enc( is per"itted in order to adapt to the increasin- co"p exit( of "odern ife$ As su'?ects for -overn"enta re-u ation "u tip (& so does the difficu t( of ad"inisterin- the aws$ @ence& specia i1ation even in e-is ation has 'eco"e necessar($ As apt ( pointed out '( the +#B and other private respondents& the Band +ransportation 7ranchisin- and #e-u ator( Board (,B+7#B,)& the !ivi Aeronautics Board (,!AB,)& the Nationa +e eco""unications !o""ission (,N+!,)& and the Phi ippine Ports Authorit( (,PPA,)& to na"e a few& have 'een such de e-ates O((I$E O( THE OMB2DSMAN, 's. PEDRO DELI"ERO, "R. ).R. N!. *+.657 O t!ber ./, ./*/ !on-ress enacted #$A$ No$ :776 (+he O"'uds"an Act of 1989) providin- for the functiona & structura or-ani1ation& and the extent of the ad"inistrative discip inar( authorit( of the petitioner$ +he provisions of this aw ,app ( to a 2inds of "a feasance& "isfeasance& and nonfeasance, co""itted '( an( officer or e"p o(ee of the Covern"ent& or of an( su'division& a-enc( or instru"enta it( thereof& inc udin- -overn"ent4owned or contro ed corporations& ,durin- his tenure in office$, .ts "andate is not on ( to ,act pro"pt ( on co"p aints, a-ainst such pu' ic officers or e"p o(ees& 'ut a so to ,enforce their ad"inistrative& civi and cri"ina ia'i it( in ever( case where the evidence warrants in order to pro"ote efficient service '( the Covern"ent to the peop e$, Ahi e petitioner has concurrent ad"inistrative discip inar( authorit( with the )E!5 over pu' ic schoo teachers& 5ection 2% of the O"'uds"an Act of 1989 provides that the O"'uds"an "a( refer a co"p aint to the proper discip inar( authorit($ Dnder the circu"stances o'tainin- herein& it wou d have 'een "ore prudent for petitioner to have referred the co"p aint to the )E!5 -iven that it wou d have 'een in a 'etter position to serve the interest of ?ustice considerin- the nature of the controvers($ #espondent is a pu' ic schoo teacher and is covered '( #A *:76& therefore& the proceedin-s 'efore the )E!5 wou d have 'een the "ore appropriate venue to reso ve the dispute$ .t is the 5choo 5uperintendent and not the O"'uds"an that has ?urisdiction over ad"inistrative cases a-ainst pu' ic schoo teachers$ EDNA E2)ENIO, et, a%. 's. STA. MONI$A RIVERSIDE HOMEO:NERS ASSO$IATION ).R. N!. *-++7* N!'e#ber .., ./*/ Dpon confer"ent of 3uasi4?udicia functions to an ad"inistrative a-enc(& a controversies re atin- to the su'?ect "atter which pertain to its specia i1ation are dee"ed inc uded within its ?urisdiction$ 5ince the @BD#B is vested '( aw with ?urisdiction to re-u ate and supervise ho"eowner associations& respondent correct ( od-ed their co"p aint with the @BD#B$ Ahi e a co"p aint for e?ect"ent& which raises the issue of who has a 'etter ri-ht of possession& fa s within the exc usive and ori-ina ?urisdiction of first eve courts& the ri-ht of possession in the present case is& however& necessari ( intertwined with a deter"ination of ri-hts and privi e-es under a distinctive socia housin- concept such as !EP& which fa s within the expertise of the @BD#B$ ROM2LO R. PERALTA 's. HON. RA2L E. DE LEON and HL2RB ).R. N!. *-+,+N!'e#ber .=, ./*/ Cenera (& the extent to which an ad"inistrative a-enc( "a( exercise its powers depends ar-e (& if not who (& on the provisions of the statute creatin- or e"powerin- such a-enc($ Presidentia )ecree No$ 1%**& ,E"powerin- the Nationa @ousin- Authorit( to .ssue Arit of Execution in the Enforce"ent of its )ecision under Presidentia )ecree No$ 987&, c arifies and spe s out the 3uasi4?udicia di"ensions of the -rant of ?urisdiction to the @BD#B in the fo owin- specific ter"s such as to hear

and decide cases of the fo owin- nature& unsound rea estate 'usiness practices& c ai"s invo vinrefund and an( other c ai"s fi ed '( su'division ot or condo"iniu" unit 'u(er a-ainst the pro?ect owner& deve oper& dea er& 'ro2er or sa es"an< and cases invo vin- specific perfor"ance of contractua and statutor( o' i-ations fi ed '( 'u(ers of su'division ots or condo"iniu" units a-ainst the owner& deve oper& 'ro2er or sa es"an$ Fiewed fro" this perspective& the @BD#B/s ?urisdiction over contractua ri-hts and o' i-ations of parties under su'division and condo"iniu" contracts co"es out ver( c ear ($ +he ar-u"ent that on ( courts of ?ustice can ad?udicate c ai"s reso u' e under the provisions of the !ivi !ode is out of step with the fast4chan-in- ti"es$ +here are hundreds of ad"inistrative 'odies now perfor"in- this function '( virtue of a va id authori1ation fro" the e-is ature$ +his 3uasi4?udicia function& as it is ca ed& is exercised '( the" as an incident of the principa power entrusted to the" of re-u atin- certain activities fa in- under their particu ar expertise$ LO2IS @BARO4@ $. BIRAO)O 's. THE PHILIPPINE TR2TH $OMMISSION O( ./*/ ).R. N!. *,.,57 De e#ber +, ./*/ +he eva uation of the sufficienc( of the evidence is a quasi-judicial/judicial function$ .t invo ves an assess"ent of the evidence which is an exercise of ?udicia discretion$ Ae have defined discretion as the a'i it( to "a2e decisions which represent a responsi' e choice and for which an understandin- of what is awfu & ri-ht or wise "a( 'e presupposed$ +he power to esta' ish if there is reasona' e -round to 'e ieve that certain persons are ia' e for -raft and corruption under pertinent app ica' e aws is 3uasi4?udicia in nature 'ecause it is a2in to the discretion exercised '( a prosecutor in the deter"ination of pro'a' e cause durin- a pre i"inar( investi-ation$ .t invo ves a ?udicia (or 3uasi4 ?udicia ) appraisa of the facts for the purpose of deter"inin- if a vio ation has in fact 'een co""itted$ A thou-h such a pre i"inar( investi-ation is not a tria and is not intended to usurp the function of the tria court& it is not a casua affair$ +he officer conductin- the sa"e investi-ates or in3uires into the facts concernin- the co""ission of the cri"e with the end in view of deter"inin- whether or not& an infor"ation "a( 'e prepared a-ainst the accused$ @ence& the +ruth !o""ission is vested with 3uasi4?udicia discretion in the dischar-e of its functions$ (EDERI$O SORIANO, et. a%. 's. ANA SHARI B. BRAVO, et. a%. ).R. N!. *7./-6 De e#ber *7, ./*/ 0urisdiction shou d 'e deter"ined '( considerin- not on ( the status or the re ationship of the parties 'ut a so the nature of the issues or 3uestions that is the su'?ect of the controvers($ .f the issues 'etween the parties are intertwined with the reso ution of an issue within the exc usive ?urisdiction of the )A#AB& such dispute "ust 'e addressed and reso ved '( the )A#AB$ +he proceedin-s 'efore a court or tri'una without ?urisdiction& inc udin- its decision& are nu and void& hence& suscepti' e to direct and co atera attac2s$ 7indin-s of fact of ad"inistrative a-encies and 3uasi4?udicia 'odies& which have ac3uired expertise 'ecause their ?urisdiction is confined to specific "atters& are -enera ( accorded not on ( respect& 'ut fina it( when affir"ed '( the !ourt of Appea s$ 5uch findin-s deserve fu respect and& without ?ustifia' e reason& ou-ht not to 'e a tered& "odified& or reversed$