San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department

Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
Final Term Case Notes
Case 1: THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION vs.
HON. DANIEL P. ALFONSO
Facts: The Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS) and the Board of Medical
Education (BME) authorized the Commission on
Medical Education to conduct a study of all
medical schools in the Philippines. The, report of
the Commission showed that the College fell
very much short of the minimum standards set
for medical schools Accordingly, the Board of
Medical Education recommended to the DECS
the closure of the College. The, College appealed
the decision to the Office of the President,
imputing grave abuse of discretion to the
Secretary. The Executive Secretary, finding "no
reason to disturb" the contested decision,
affirmed It., the College went to court. It filed
Civil Case No. 1385 in the court of respondent
Judge against the Secretary of Education, Culture
and Sports, questioning the decision as illegal,
oppressive, arbitrary and discriminatory and
applied for a writ of preliminary injunction to
restrain its implementation.
ISSUE: W.O.N The resort to the courts by the
college is proper?
Held: Resort to the Courts to obtain a reversal of
the determination by the Secretary of Education,
Culture and Sports that the College is unfit to
continue its operations is in this case clearly
unavailing. It is not the function of this Court or
any other Court to review the decisions and
orders of the Secretary on the issue of whether
or not an educational institution meets the
norms and standards required for permission to
operate and to continue operating as such. On
this question, no Court has the power or
prerogative to substitute its opinion for that of
the Secretary. The, only authority reposed in the

Courts in the matter is the determination of

whether or not the Secretary of Education,
Culture and Sports has acted within the scope of
powers granted him by law and the Constitution.
As long as it appears that he has done so, any
decision rendered by him should not and will not
be subject to review and reversal by any court.
Of course, if it should be made, to appear to the
Court that those powers were in a case exercised
so whimsically, capriciously, oppressively,
despotically or arbitrarily as to call for
peremptory correction or stated otherwise,
that the Secretary had acted with grave abuse of
discretion, or had unlawfully neglected the
performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty, or excluded another from the
use or enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled it becomes the Court's
duty to rectify such action through the
extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition,
or mandamus, whichever may properly apply.

Case 2: SAN LUIS VS. CA

Facts: Private respondent berroya had been the
quarry superintendent in the Province of Laguna,
denounced graft and corrupt practices by
employees of the provincial government of
Laguna thereafter several developments
resulting to transfer, suspension and eventual
removal of the berroya, on appeal the CSC ruled
in favor of the private respondent by
exonerating him and the office of the President
affirmed the decision of the CSC, however,
petitioner governor made several attempts to
overturn the decision by filing motion
reconsideration and bringing the matter before
the courts for review notwithstanding the
finality of the decision of the CSC and the office
of the president.

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
ISSUE: W.O.N the courts can disturb the rulings
of the CSC and the office of the president that
have attained finality?
Held: Since the decisions of both the Civil Service
Commission and the Office of the President had
long become final and executory, the same can
no longer be reviewed by the courts. It is wellestablished in our jurisprudence that the
decisions and orders of administrative agencies,
rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial
authority, have upon their finality, the force and
binding effect of a final judgment within the
purview of the doctrine of res judicata. The
general rule, under the principles of
administrative law in force in this jurisdiction, is
that decisions of administrative officers shall not
be disturbed by the courts, except when the
former have acted without or in excess of their
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
Findings of administrative officials and agencies
who have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are
generally accorded not only respect but at times
even finality if such findings are supported by
substantial evidence The rule of res judicata
which forbids the reopening of a matter once
judicially determined by competent authority
applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial
acts of public, executive or administrative
officers and boards acting within their
jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having
general judicial powers. Indeed, the principle of
conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not
confined in its operation to the judgments of
what are ordinarily known as courts, but it
extends to all bodies upon whom judicial powers
had been conferred.
Case 3 : U.P VS CATUNGAL
Facts: Petitioner University of the Philippines is a
state university is a state university created by

virtue of Act No. 1870. The petitioners avail of

the special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition under rule 65 of the rules of court to
secure nullification of decisions issued by
respondent judge pending before the RTC.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
denied thus affirming the issuamce of wit of
premilinary imjuction prayed by private
respondent Salvador Carlos. It issued an order
granting a search warrant against Carlos by the
Quezon City Police District, such issuance of
search warrant was based on the testimomies
and sworn statements of the three complaining
witnesses known as Jessica Romblon, Amy
Fallorima and Ferline Alaan, alleging that on
different occassions they were brought by a
certain Red to the residence if Carlos to have
themselves photographed for publication in a
magazine. Instead, Carlos threatened them with
a gun and ordered them strip naked. Nude
photos were taken and they were forced to have
sex with him. After the search warrant, some
confiscated things are guns, camera, pictures of
nide women, artificial rubberized penis and
rubber saction pump. Carlos was arrested and
was charged of grave abuse of conduct and
placed inder preventive suspension.
Issue: WON a litigant may be denied relief by a
court of equity on account that his conduct has
been inequitable, unfair and dishonest or
deceitful.
Held: since the injuction is strong arm of equity,
he who must apply must come with equity or
with clean hands. This is so because among the
maxims of equity are 1) he who seeks equity
must do equity; 2) he who comes into equity
must come into equity with clean hands. The
latter as frequently stated maxim which is also
expressed in the that he who has done inequity
shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
may be denied relief by a court of equity on the
ground that his conduct has been inequitable,
unfair and dishonest as to the controversy in the
issue. We are convinced that carlos did not come
with to court with clean hands. The underying
principle of the rule on administrative remedies
rest on the presumption that administrative
agencies is afforded a complete chance to pass
upon the matter, will decide correctly. Where
the enabling statute indicates the procedure for
administrative review and provides a system to
appeal, the courts for reason of law wil not
entertain a case unless the available remedies
have been resorted to.

Case 4: MACAILING VS ANDRADA

Facts: a dispute in four parcels if land between
plaintiffs and settlers occupying four hectares
each and Salvador Andrada later substituted by
his heirs , sales applicant of a bigger parcel of
lands which includes the lands occuppied by
plaintiffs. The district land officer of cotabato
ruled in favor of the plaintiff which was then
reversed by the director of Lands. An appeal was
taken to the Sec of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, in return, reversed the decision of the
director of Lands, awarding to plaintiffs the land
they claimed. Such decision was filed a petition
for certiorari and was moved to the office of the
President, which in return, ruled in favor of
Andrada where the lands should be restored to
his heirs. Thus, plaintiff raised the issie on the
finality of the decision of he Exexcutive
Secretary.
Issue: WON the plaintiff's remedy of certiorari
is proper, thus making the action valid or
dismissible

Held: In the matter if judicial review of

administrative decisions, some statutes
especially provides for such judicial review,
others are silent. Whre silence, however does
not necesssrily imply that judicial review is
unavailable. Modes of judicial review vary
according to the statutes, appeal, petition for
review or a writ of certiorari. No general rule
applies to all the various administrative
agemcies. Where the lsw stsnds mute, the
accepted view is that the extraordinary remedies
in the rules of coyrt are still available. Deducible
from the foregoing is, that where the
administrative agencies have original jurisdiction
in the premises, the court's interferemce with
administrative action is necessarily limited. A
review thereof cannot be done through an
ordinsry civil acrion if condtitutional or legislstive
authority therefor is wanting. The remedies that
can be availed of when the statute is silent im
the present case, are the special civil action for
certiorari, prohibition and or mandamus. In this
case, we have no alternstive but to hold that the
plaintiff's appropriate remedy is certiorari, not
an ordinary civil action.

Case 5: QUINTOS VS NATIONAL STUD FARDM

Facts: Complainant was an owner of a race horse
named King Toss, that such is scheduled to race
in a legally authorized racing clubs and was
participating in horse races and sweepstakes,
and that horse was applied for and submitted
the name to the defendant Phil. Racing Club
which was dully accepted and approved.
Consequently, the horse was declared eligible to
participate and take part in the actual race dated
June 17, 1972, but on the day of the race, public
announcement was made by defendant that the
horse named 'king toss' is being excluded from
the race where it was suppose to join. He then

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
filed a complaint for having been oppressed of
due process. But such was dismissed by the
court.
Issue: WON the court errred in dismissing
appellant's complaimt for failire to exhaust
administrative remedies.
Held: plaintiff is not unware if the impress of
authoritativeness affixed to the basic principle of
administrative remedies having to be fully
utilized before resort to courts is allowable. With
the presumption that the sending thereof
ordinarily is followed by receipt, the assertion as
he pointed out was far from pursuasive. Even
with according due weight to tje alegation that
protection of public interest did require such
cancellation, a step that can be taken without a
hearing, additional argument offered as to the
exhaustion of administrative remedies not being
procedurally impossible does commend itself for
approval. What further support to the decision
now on appeal is that the failure to apply such a
basic concept of exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be attended with the
consequences adverse to such equally wellsettled postulates in administrative law of
primary jurisdiction and ripeness of review.

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________

Case 6: OBANANA vs. BONCAROS

Facts: This case involves a land dispute over the
land of a certain Celestino Lantao. Celestino is
the common predecessor of the parties, after his
death the parties partitioned the land, when
private respondent went to the bureau of lands
to have the lands titled it was discovered that the
portions of his share were inadvertently included
in the petitioners tax declaration, the parties
settled the matter among themselves. However,
controversy arose when petitioners went to
their lot to harvest the nipa palms on their
portion but to their surprise, they were stopped
by private respondent who threatened them
with bodily harm and the filing of criminal cases;
they subsequently discovered that private
respondent, without their knowledge and
consent, had surreptitiously and fraudulently
applied for a homestead patent over the whole
lot in utter disregard of their rights and
ultimately obtained Original Certificate of Title
Subsequently, upon private respondents
motion, on the grounds that the award of a
patent by the Director of Lands is conclusive
upon the rights of the parties and that it is said
official, not the Trial Court, who has jurisdiction
over the controversy; and that there can be no
collateral attack on private respondents title,
respondent Judge dismissed the Complaint for
lack of cause of action due to petitioners failure
to exhaust administrative remedies.

ISSUE: W.O.N the doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies applies in private
lands as held by the trial court in dismissing the
case?

Held: The doctrine requiring prior exhaustion of

administrative remedies before recourse to

Courts may be had is confined to public lands. It

is inapplicable to private lands. A free patent
application having been granted in the case at
bar and a corresponding certificate of title
having been issued, a subject property ceased to
be part of the public domain and became private
property over which the Director of Lands has
neither control nor jurisdiction. The land covered
thereby assumes the character of registered
property in accordance with the provisions of
Section 122 of the Land Registration Act and the
remedy of the party who has been injured by
fraudulent registration is an action for re
conveyance.
Case 7: COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.
AZNAR
Facts: Collector of Internal Revenue, through the
office of the City Treasurer of Cebu, demanded
from Aznar the payment allegedly representing
the latter's income tax deficiencies for the tax
years 1945 to 1951. It appears on record that the
Collector of Internal Revenue also instructed the
City Treasurer of Cebu to place the properties of
said taxpayer under constructive distraint to
guarantee the satisfaction of the taxes thus
assessed he taxpayer filed with the Court of Tax
Appeals a petition to review the same and
subsequently an urgent petition was also filed to
restrain therein respondent Collector of Internal
Revenue from proceeding with the collection of
the alleged tax deficiencies by means of the
summary methods of distraint and levy the
lower Court, in a resolution dated February 8,
1956, issued an injunction prayed for enjoining
the Collector of Internal Revenue from

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
proceeding with the collection of the taxes by
means of the summary methods of distraint and

Case 8: BARANGAY DASMARIAS vs. CREATIVE

PLAY CORNER SCHOOL

levy From this resolution, the Collector of

Internal Revenue brought the matter to this
Court in a petition to review by certiorari
Contending that collection of taxes cannot be
restrained by injunction; and that even if the

Facts: On June 28, 2004, petitioner Barangay

Dasmarias filed a Complaint-Affidavit before

Court a quo could have lawfully issued the same,

said tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion
ISSUE: W.O.N the Court of Tax Appeals erred in
issuing the injunction restraining said the
collector of internal revenue in collecting
alleged deficiency income taxes through the
summary methods of distraint and levy?
Held: Section 305 of the National Internal
Revenue Code precludes the use of injunction to
restrain the collection of taxes,). And we have
since then and even before, adhered to the
doctrine that the collection of income taxes,
after the lapse of three years from the date the
income tax return said to be false, fraudulent or
erroneous had been filed, may no longer be
effected by means of administrative methods
but only through judicial proceedings. In the light
of the aforementioned ruling, were We to
consider as valid and in order the disputed
warrant placing the properties of the taxpayer
under constructive distraint and levy, the
collection of the taxes for 1949, 1950 and 1951
by extra-judicial methods would proper and the
resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals as far as it
concerns this later period would be erroneous,
although summary administrative means would
no longer be the proper recourse for the
collection of taxes corresponding to1948 and the
years previous to that as 3 years, 11 months and
22 days has already elapsed from the time the
income tax return for that year was filed.

the Office of the Prosecutor of Makati charging

Respondent Creative Play Corner School (CPC)
and its alleged owners Falsification and Use of
Falsified Documents. Petitioner alleged that
respondents falsified and used the Barangay
Clearance and Official Receipt purportedly
issued in the name of CPC by the Office of the
Barangay Captain of Dasmarias Village, Makati
City.
The
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
recommended the dismissal of the case because
of failure to establish probable cause. The same
was upheld by the DOJ. In the CA before
petitioner was able to file its petition, it first
sought for an extension of time of 15 days from
May 13, 2005 or until May 28, 2005 within which
to file the same due to counsel's heavy workload.
The CA granted the extension in a Resolution
dated May 23, 2005. Subsequently, petitioner
asked for another extension [14] of five days
from May 28, 2005 until June 2, 2005 for the
same reason given in its first motion for
extension.
ISSUE: W.O.N The CA erred in dismissing the
Petition for Review on a mere technicality,
without considering the substantive grounds on
which the Petition for Review was based
Held: It is clear that the CA, after it has already
allowed petitioner an extension of 15 days
within which to file a petition for review, may
only grant a further extension when presented
with the most compelling reason but same is
limited only to a period of 15 days. As to
petitioner's invocation of liberal application of

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
the rules, we cannot heed the same. It is true
that litigation is not a game of technicalities and
that the rules of procedure should not be strictly
followed in the interest of substantial justice.
However, it does not mean that the Rules of
Court may be ignored at will.
It bears
emphasizing that procedural rules should not be
Belittled or dismissed simply because their nonobservance may have resulted in prejudice to a
Partys substantial rights. Like all rules, they are
required to be followed except only for the most
persuasive of reasons.
Case 9: LAGANAPAN vs. ASEDILLO
Facts: Petitioner Laganapan was appointed chief
of police of the municipality of Kalayaan, Laguna
by the respondent Mayor Asedillo. However, on
16 February 1967, the petitioner was summarily
dismissed from his position by respondent on
the ground that his appointment was provisional
and that he has no civil service eligibility. The
petitioner filed a petition for mandamus, quo
warranto with preliminary mandatory injunction
before the Court of First Instance of Laguna,
seeking his reinstatement to the position of chief
of police of Kalayaan, Laguna, with back salaries
and damages. In answer, respondent Mayor
claimed that the appointment of the petitioner,
being merely temporary in character, and the
petitioner having no civil service eligibility, his
services could be terminated with or without
cause, at the pleasure of the appoint power; and
that the petitioner failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies. The CFI ruled in favor
of petitioner that petitioner need not exhaust
administrative remedies.
ISSUE: W.O.N The trial court is correct in ruling
that petitioner need not the exhaust
administrative remedies

Held: While there are precedents which hold

that before a litigant can bring a matter to court,
it is necessary that he first exhaust all the
remedies in the administrative branch of the
government, the doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies is not a hard and fast

rule. It has been repeatedly held that the
principle requiring previous exhaustion of
administrative remedies is not applicable where
the question in dispute is purely a legal one;
where the controverted act is patently illegal or
was performed without jurisdiction or in excess
of jurisdiction; where the respondent is a
department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego
of the President, bear the implied or assumed
approval of the latter; where there are
circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial
intervention; or where the respondent has acted
in utter disregard of due process. 13 The rule
does not also apply where insistence on its
observance would result in nullification of the
claim being asserted; and when the rule does not
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. In
the instant case, there is no doubt that, in
terminating the services of the appellee, the
appellant Mayor Elpidio Asedillo acted
summarily without any semblance of compliance
or even an attempt to comply with the
elementary rules of due process. No charges
were filed; nor was a hearing conducted in order
to give the appellee an opportunity to defend
himself
Case 10-A: MAPA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: On January 20, 1987, petitioners were
charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. In the interim, the late
President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Mrs. Imelda
R. Marcos were charged in New York with

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO. To insure the
conviction of the Marcoses, the prosecution
solicited the testimonies of witnesses. Among
these witnesses were petitioners Vergara and
Mapa. Petitioners were requested to testify in
the said RICO cases against the former First
Couple. They were promised immunity from
further criminal prosecution. They agreed. The
petitioners complied with their respective
undertaking. They travelled to New York to
testify against the Marcoses. Their travel fare
and hotel accommodations were even furnished
by the PCGG. But despite their availability and
willingness to testify, the US prosecutors decided
not to call them to the witness stand. The legal
struggle shifted back to the prosecution of
petitioners in Criminal Case No. 11960 before
the respondent court. On the basis of the
immunity granted to them
ISSUE: W.O.N the fact that the prosecution in
the RICO cases did not actually present
petitioners as witnesses abrogate the immunity
granted to them?
Held: the failure of petitioners to testify in the
RICO cases against the Marcoses in New York
cannot nullify their immunity. They have
satisfied the requirements both of the law and
the parties' implementing agreements. Under
section 5 of E.O. No. 14, as amended, their duty
was to give information to the prosecution, and
they did. Under their Memorandum of
Agreement, they promised to make themselves
available as witnesses in the said RICO cases, and
they did. Petitioners were ready to testify but
they were not called to testify by the US
prosecutors of the RICO case. Their failure to
testify was not of their own making. It was
brought about by the decision of the US
prosecutors who may have thought that their

evidence was enough to convict the Marcoses.

Since petitioners' failure to testify was not of
their own choosing nor was it due to any fault of
their own, justice and equity forbid that they be
Penalized by the withdrawal of their immunity.
Indeed, initially, the PCGG itself adopted the
posture that the immunity of petitioners stayed
and should not be disturbed. Immunity statutes
in varying shapes were enacted which would
allow government to compel a witness to testify
despite his plea of the right against selfincrimination. To insulate these statutes from
the virus of unconstitutionality, a witness is given
what has come to be known as transactional or
a use-derivative-use immunity.
Case 10-B: DIAZ vs. SECRETARY OF FINANCE
Facts:
Petitioners filed this petition for
declaratory relief assailing the validity of the
impending imposition of value-added tax (VAT)
by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on the
collections of toll way operators. Court treated
the case as one of prohibition. Petitioners hold
the view that Congress did not, when it enacted
the NIRC, intend to include toll fees within the
meaning of "sale of services" that are subject to
VAT; that a toll fee is a "user's tax," not a sale of
services; that to impose VAT on toll fees would
amount to a tax on public service; and that, since
VAT was never factored into the formula for
computing toll fees, its imposition would violate
the non-impairment clause of the constitution.
The government avers that the NIRC imposes
VAT on all kinds of services of franchise grantees,
including toll way operations; that the Court
should seek the meaning and intent of the law
from the words used in the statute; and that the
imposition of VAT on toll way operations has
been the subject as early as 2003 of several BIR
rulings and circulars. The government also
argues that petitioners have no right to invoke

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
the non-impairment of contracts clause since
they clearly have no personal interest in existing
toll operating agreements (TOAs) between the
government and toll way operators. At any rate,
the non-impairment clause cannot limit the
State's sovereign taxing power which is generally
read into contracts.
ISSUE: May toll fees collected by tollway
operators be subjected to VAT?
Held: When a tollway operator takes a toll fee
from a motorist, the fee is in effect for the
latter's use of thetollway facilities over which the
operator enjoys private proprietary rights that
its contract and the law recognize. In this sense,
the toll way operator is no different from the
service providers under Section108 who allow
others to use their properties or facilities for a
fee. Toll way operators are franchise grantees
and they do not belong to exceptions that
Section 119 spares from the payment of VAT.
The word "franchise" broadly covers
government grants of a special rightto do an act
or series of acts of public concern. Toll way
operators are, owing to the nature and objectof
their business, "franchise grantees." The
construction, operation, and maintenance of toll
facilities on public improvements are activities of
public consequence that necessarily require a
special grant of authority from the state. A tax is
imposed under the taxing power of the
government principally for the purpose of raising
revenues to fund public expenditures. Toll fees,
on the other hand, are collected by private
tollway operators as reimbursement for the
costs and expenses incurred in the construction,
maintenance and operation of the toll ways, as
well as to assure them a reasonable margin of
income. Although toll fees are charged for the
use of public facilities, therefore, they are not
government exactions that can be properly

treated as a tax. Taxes may be imposed only by

the government under its sovereign authority,
toll fees may be demanded by either the
government or private individuals or entities, as
an attribute of ownership

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________

Case Notes (Final Term)

Case No. 11: Roxas and Co. v. The Hon. Court
of Appeals
Facts: This case involves three haciendas in
Nasugbu, Batangas owned by the petitioner and
the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas
by the Government. Somewhere in February
1986, Former President Corazon Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 3 promulgating a provisional
constitution which enabled her to exercise
executive & legislative powers at the same time,
and as a result the CARP was created. Before the
law took effect, the petitioners filed with one of
the respondents a voluntary offer to sell one of
the haciendas pursuant to E.O 229 which
implemented the CARP. On August 24, 1993 the
petitioner instituted a case alleging that the
Municipality of Nasugbu where the properties
are located, has been declared as a tourist zone
and the land is not suitanle for agricultural
production, in a resolution the DARAB held that
the case involved a prejudicial question which
the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform must
determine the case, subsequently the petitioner
filed an action to the CA questioning the
expropriation proceedings and the denial of due
process in the acquisition of the Land Holdings,
which the CA held that the action must be
dismissed for the petitioners failure to exhaust
available remedies and directly filing this action
to the CA.
ISSUE: WON THE CA ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
THE PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ALL
AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
HELD: As a general rule, a party before invoking
the jurisdiction of the regular courts of justice
must exhaust all available administrative

remedies, but the rule admits certain exceptions,

the DAR in issuing the Certificate of Land
Ownership to farmer beneficiaries over portion
of the petitioners land gravely erred in giving
such award because he was denied of his right to
due process. When a party has been deprived of
his right to due process the doctrine does not
come into play. Considering the fact that there
was no compensation given after the
expropriation, this act already constituted a
violation of due process. Thus the State, in the
exercise of expropriation is required to give the
aggrieved party a just compensation upon the
taking of his property, the absence of which will
invalidate the whole proceeding.
Case No. 12:Presidential Commission on Good
Governance v. Sandiganbayan
Facts: By virtue of P.D 1193, Former President
Marcos authorized the Tourist Duty Free Shops
Inc. to establish, operate and maintain duty and
tax free stores at all international airports and
seaports, as well as selected hotels, tourist
resorts and commercial or trading centers
throughout the country. The TDFSIs account
was rendered frozen upon the filing of the PCGG
of a freeze order directing the RCBC to freeze any
transfer, withdrawals or remittances from the
funds of the TDFSI on that bank. The Petitioner
claimed that such act of preventing them from
using the funds would cause grave and
irreparable damages in the form of investments,
the Sandiganbayan subsequently dismissed the
case and invoking litis pendentia for these issues
are already present and being included in the
other pending proceeding. Meanwhile, the SC
decided with regards to the petition and
reversing the order of dismissal by the

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
Sandiganbayan because there was no litis
pendentia regarding the separate action for
certiorari and ordering the further proceedings
in the Sandiganbayan, which the latter court
ruled in favor of the TDFSI for lack of merit,
hence this petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
with a writ of preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: WON THE ISSUANCE OF THE INJUNCTIVE
WRIT IS VIOLATIVE OF RES JUDICATA, LITIS
PENDENTIA.
HELD: In order to hold a res judicata, the
following requisites must be present; (1) the
former judgment must be final; (2) the court
which rendered the judgment had jurisdiction
over the parties and the subject matter; (3)
identical of the parties, subject matter and
cause(s) of action(s). In this case, the 3rd requisite
is absent as the 2 proceedings are separate and
distinct from each other, Res Judicata or bar by
prior judgment means that a competent tribunal
must have reached a final conclusion of the case
and it must be deemed to have been finally and
conclusively settled. With regards to the
Injunction, under the rules there must be a: (1)
clear and unmistakable right that must be
protected; (2) an urgent and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
Stating otherwise, in order for a party to obtain
the writ his case must fall under the 2
circumstances enumerated.
Case no. 13: Board of Commissioners of the
Bureau of Immigration v. Hon. Felix R. Domingo
Facts: The board of immigration commissioners
and their security officers petitioned the
Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to annul
and set-aside a writ of mandatory injunction

issued by the CFI of Pangasinan directing the

sheriff of Manila to release the respondent from
the custody of the petitioner, the respondent
came to the Philippines aboard s/s Kimberley as
a stowaway Chinese Citizen which he was
apprehended by the authorities. After
investigation, the petitioner recommended his
exclusion and deportation as an alien through
false and misleading statements. Subsequently,
the respondent filed an action in the CFI claiming
that he is a Filipino Citizen, and a petition for
certiorari to annul the decision of the
Commissioner, however the case was dismissed
for the respondents failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies, hence this petition.
ISSUE: WON the Court erred in holding that the
respondent must exhaust the available
administrative remedies.
Held: The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is the manifestation of
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, where the
regular courts of justice must not intervene until
and unless the case has been settled by the
administrative agency; authoritatively and with
finality UNLESS SUCH DECISION IS TAINTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION; which is an
exception to the doctrine of exhaustion; since
the decision reached by the petitioner was not
tainted with such, there is no reason to disturb
their ruling. Since the judiciary cannot
reasonably foresee and know these technical
matters and these agencies are well-adapted to
these kinds of issues.

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
Case No. 14: U.P Board of Regents v. Rasul
Facts: Dr. Felipe Estrella was appointed to the
Board of Regents as the director of PGH and is
intended to have it for the full term as director.
Thereafter, a memorandum was issued
regarding the reorganization of the PGH in which
Estrella is the director, and subsequent to that
reorganization a memorandum creating the
Nomination Committee for the UP-PGH Medical
Center Director and are tasked to examine and
to nominate possible persons for the
administrative section of the PGH. An action was
filed by Estrella and enjoining the petitioner here
in this case from proceeding with the
nomination, arguing that the reorganization was
done in bad-faith. The Petitioners sought to
annul and set-aside the judgment of injunction
directed to them rendered by the respondent,
Rasul; which by their allegations was done in a
whimsical and capricious manner by taking
cognizance of the case despite of the
respondents failure to exhaust all available
administrative remedies by failing to appeal on
the upper body of the administrative agency,
and by substituting Rasuls judgment over the
reorganization.
Issue: WON THE PETITION SHOULD BE
DISMISSED FOR THE RESPONDENTS FAILURE
TO EXHAUST ALL AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES
Held: The Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies as a general rule is
required to be availed of, for a partys action to
the regular courts of justice would be considered
premature and can be a subject to a motion to
dismiss for lack of cause of action and by failure
to comply with the condition precedents before

filing the case (Rule 16- ROC) yet, this doctrine

admits certain exceptions; and one of them is IF
IT WOULD CAUSE GRAVE OR IRREPARABLE
INJURY TO A PARTY. In which the regular courts
of justice may intervene and to settle the case;
the SC held that the case fall under the
exception; Dr. Estrella was about to be replaced
and he was led to believe that the petitioner
would only cause further injustice to him,
because the reorganization was done in badfaith and for the purpose of removing him as the
Director of PGH..
Case No. 15: Ignacio v. CA
Facts: The petitioners filed a protest with the
Bureau of Lands alleging that the homestead
application and the sales application which
covered certain parcels of land in Malita, Davao.
After due inspections made, a decision made by
the Regional Land Officer for davao excluding
certain portions of the homestead of the
petitioner, which decision was affirmed by the
Director of Lands. While on appeal, the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural resources modified
the said decisions by excluding the portion
belonging to the respondent while including the
portion applied therewith by the plaintiff, not
satisfied the decision was appealed to the office
of the President which overturned and modified
the decision of the Secretary, subsequent
motions for reconsideration was filed but the
same was denied by the Executive Secretary,
now the case is elevated to the regular courts of
justice but a motion to dismiss was filed by the
petitioner alleging that the complaint is lacking
in form and substance. Which the case was
appealed to the CA raising questions of law.
ISSUE: WON THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________

LACK OR EXCESS OF
DISMISSING THE CASE

JURISDICTION

IN

Held: We find that the court a quo did not

commit any error in dismissing the petition. As
correctly stated by the court a quo, the petition
failed to allege any error committed by the
respondent Executive Secretary in his findings of
fact or conclusions which would constitute a
grave abuse of discretion. Section 1 of Rule 65 of
the Revised Rules of Court provides that in a
petition for certiorari, the facts showing that the
tribunal acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
must be alleged with certainty. As found by the
trial court, the alleged error of the respondent
official is at most merely an error of judgment,
not constituting grave abuse of discretion and,
consequently, not annullable by certiorari. Not
every error in the course of the proceeding is not
to be considered immediately as done with grave
abuse of discretion.
Case No. 16: Office of the Court Administrator
v. Claudio Lopez
Facts: Information dated January 12, 2004 was
filed against the respondent for violation of Sec.
11 of RA 9165 (Dangerous Drug Act). In
accordance with the En Banc resolution by the
Supreme Court, the Petitioner herein initiated
motu proprio the filing of Administrative
Complaint against the respondent on the ground
of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming
a Public Employee/Officer. The respondent in
his response alleged that the criminal case
against him might be dismissed for insufficiency
of evidence, after his response the OCA
appointed a judge who will conduct an
investigation on the matter. Claiming that the
prosecution has not established his guilt, the

Judge in his response to the respondents

comment said that the quantum of evidence
required in a criminal case is different from the
quantum of proof required in an administrative
case. Basing the evidence on the mere
possession of a prohibited substance under R.A
9165, the judge in the administrative case held
the respondent guilty of the charges filed against
him.
ISSUE 1: WON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS
ADEQUATE ENOUGH TO HOLD A PERSON
GUILTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
ISSUE 2: WON THE DIMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL
CASE CARRIES WITH IT THE DISMISSAL OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
HELD 2: The investigating judge is correct in
holding that a criminal case is a separate and
distinct charge as contrasted to an
administrative case. The quantum of proof
required in the former is a proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt; while on the other hand the
latter requires substantial evidence or evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
HELD 2: As discussed in the earlier ruling, an
administrative case is a separate and distinct
proceeding, hence the dismissal of the criminal
case does not carry the dismissal of the
administrative case.
Case No. 17: Federation of Free Workers v.
Amado G. Inciong
Facts: On September 17, 1977, a certification
election was held in the private respondents
company under the supervision of the Bureau of
Labor Relations. The petitioner garnered the
highest number of votes and was subsequently
declared
the
authorized
bargaining
representative pursuant to the provisions of the

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________

Labor
Code.
Consequently
a
MOA
(Memorandum of Agreement) was executed
between the parties to this case regarding the
formation of a CBA (Collective bargaining
agreement); subsequently both parties have
failed to reach an agreement; hence resulting to
a deadlock. The petitioner filed a strike permit to
the BLR, which was granted and the notice was
given to the private respondent in this case. A
conference was held in order to reconcile the 2
parties, which the respondent herein took
cognizance and unilaterally assumed the
jurisdiction over the case. During the conference
they reached an agreement which both of the
parties have bound themselves to the
agreement, however some of the members of
the FFW went on strike notwithstanding the
petitioners commitment to the said agreement
went on a strike. The private respondent moved
to declare the strike invalid and hence void, and
prayed for the termination of the striking
employees. The respondent granted the
application declaring the strike as an illegal
activity, and prejudicial to the public interest.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE: WON THE DECISIONS OF THE
RESPONDENT DEPUTY MINISTER VOID FOR
REASON OF ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE OF
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
HELD: The Court held that the respondent
deputy minister did not act in a certain manner
that would equate to a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The
remedy of the aggrieved party is an appeal to a
higher official which is an appeal to the

President; it is true that an action for certiorari

may be resorted to if the appeal will not be
adequate enough to correct any errors in the
judgment. But the case at bar suggests that
certiorari may not lie, since there is still an
available remedy which is an appeal. Certiorari
cannot be, and must not be made as a
substitute for a lost appeal. It is evident that the
plaintiff did not availed any of the further
remedy, worse despite of the availability of the
remedy, they allowed the decision to lapse and
hence such act or omission rendered the
judgment final and executor.
Case No. 18: Energy Regulation Board v. Court
of Appeals
Facts: On June 30, 1983, Shell filed with the
Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) an application
for authority to relocate its service station at
Paranaque, Metro Manila to Imelda Marcos
Avenue at the same municipality. Subsequently,
it gave due course to the petition. The Petroleum
Distributors and Service Corporation (PDSC)
opposed the application, alleging that 1. There
are adequate service station in the place covered
by such petition; 2.) Competition will rise on the
established place in the application and there
would be feasible decline of sales in that area.
However, the BEU reinstated such application
and rendered in favor of the PDSC by denying
such application. The Shell Co. filed a motion for
reconsideration, by including a feasibility study
made by it, and hence the BEU accepted the
decision. The PDSC filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same failed. Then, it was
elevated to the CA. During the pendency of the
case, the same application was filed by CALTEX,
and the same also reached the CA. The CA
rendered conflicting decisions with regards to
the 2 cases. Hence a petition for certiorari was

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
filed challenging the 2 conflicting decisions of the
CA
ISSUE: WON THE CA IN RENDERING THE
CONFLICTING DECISIONS COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
HELD: The courts in the exercise of judicial
review, must respect the finding of facts by the
administrative agency concerned, if such
findings are supported by substantial evidence
or such evidence that are considered adequate
enough to support a decision. In the present
case, the CA rendered 2 conflicting decisions
based on the same set of facts, as a rule the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction entails that
courts must not and will not entertain a
controversy which involves questions that are
within the jurisdiction of the administrative
agencies, especially if it involves technical and
intricate matters requiring the special
knowledge, experience and technical skills of the
administrative agencies. Unless tainted with
grave abuse of discretion, the decisions
rendered by the agency concerned should not be
disturbed, the CA erred in entertaining the
petitions considering the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction that enjoins the courts to not try the
case, unless if the issue(s) involved are purely
legal questions, or tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. And courts are not permitted to
substitute their own judgment to that of the
agency concerned.
Case No. 19: Maximo Gabrito v. CA
Ruling: And even more recently in the case
of Guerrero v. Amores, et al., G.R. No.
L-34492 promulgated on March 28, 1988, the
Court clearly stated that "pending final
adjudication of ownership by the Bureau of

Lands, the Court has jurisdiction to determine in

the meantime the right of possession over the
land." Corollary thereto, the power to order the
sheriff to remove improvements and turn over
the possession of the land to the party adjudged
entitled thereto, belongs only to the courts of
justice and not to the Bureau of Lands. In the
same case, the application of the principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies with
reference to public lands, was further clarified by
this Court as follows: On the other hand, the
application of the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies as a condition
precedent to the filing of a juridical action is
confined to controversies arising out of the
disposition of public lands (Geukoko vs. Araneta,
102 Phil. 706 (1957); Marukot vs. Jacinto, 98 Phil.
128 (1957), alienation of public lands (Rallos vs.
Ruiz, Jr., supra) or to the determination of the
respective rights of rival claimants to public lands
(Pitarque vs. Sorilla, supra) and not to possessory
actions involving public lands which are limited
to the determination of who has the actual,
physical possession or occupation of the land in
question (Rallos vs. Ruiz, Jr., supra).
Case No. 20 Miriam College Foundation v.
Court of Appeals
Facts: An obscene and vulgar paper was
published in the domains of the petitioner which
contained sexually implicit and matters that are
injurious to the interest of the young readers of
the said paper. A concerned grade-5 student
filed a complaint against those who published it;
subsequent to that several students were
required to file their respective answers, but
none of them filed the answer which resulted to
an investigation ex parte. Upon the pendency of
such investigation, the accused students

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
requested that the case be tried by the
Department of Education, Culture & Sports
(DECS) which, according to them are competent
to try the case. Despite of such request, the
disciplinary committee of the petitioner
proceeded with regards to the investigation, and
subsequently declared that the students behind
the obscene publication is guilty, hence ordering
their immediate dismissal in the school. The
aggrieved students moved for a petition for
prohibition,
certiorari
with
preliminary
injunction before the RTC in which the said court
decided in favor of the students. The petitioner
moved for a motion for reconsideration, and
upon the motion the RTC overturned its own
decision, sustaining the decision made by the
petitioner. The case was elevated further to the
CA and it declared that the decision rendered by
the RTC is void, and as well as the dismissal of the
students. Hence this petition,
ISSUE: WON THE RTC ERRED IN ENTERTAINING
THE
IMMEDIATE
PETITION
FOR
AN
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
CONSIDERING THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION ENJOINING THE REGULAR
COURTS OF JUSTICE FROM TRYING THE CASE.
HELD: The power of a school to investigate, like
the power to expel or suspend is an inherent part
of the academic freedom of schools. The power
to investigate, by virtue of the doctrine of
necessary implication includes the power to
expel and suspend its students. The DECS have
no power or authority to try the case, since the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction tells us that
judicial intervention is proscribed, for the
questions involved in the controversy involves
technical and intricate matters, requiring the
special knowledge, experience and technical
skills of the agency. In holding that the Petitioner

has the jurisdiction and not the DECS, the Court

held that the petitioners prerogative is just an
exercise of the inherent power granted by the
academic freedom clause in the constitution.
Case No. 21: Industrial Enterprises Inc. v. CA
Facts: Petitioner (IEI) was granted a coal
operating contract by the Government through
the Bureau of Energy Development (BED) for the
exploration of two coal blocks in Eastern Samar.
Subsequently, IEI also applied with the then
Ministry of Energy for another coal operating
contract for the exploration of the three
additional coal blocks which, together with the
original blocks, comprised the so-called
Giporlos Area. IEI was later advised that in line
with the objective of rationalizing the countrys
over-all coal supply demand balance, the logical
coal operator in the area should be the
Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation
(MMIC). Thus, IEI and MMIC executed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) where IEI
assigned and transferred to the MMIC all its
rights and interests in the two coal blocks which
are the subject of IEIs contract. However, the IEI
filed an action to rescind the MOA between
them; the RTC in a SUMMARY JUDGMENT
rendered the decision in favor of IEI, which the
CA on appeal reversed the decision of the RTC,
Contending that there was indeed a genuine
issue which the summary judgment was not
proper. Considering the RTC has no jurisdiction
over the matter, the proper agency that will try
the case according to the CA is the BED. Hence
this petition.
Issue: WON THE ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES.

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________

HELD: Time and again, the exhaustion of

administrative remedies is the manifestation of
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which
means that once a party has a remedy left in the
administrative proceedings, he must exhaust all
necessary remedies before resorting to judicial
action. The exhaustion of remedies is termed as
a condition sine qua non for judicial review. The
rationale lying behind the doctrine is to allow the
administrative agency concerned to do justice in
its own domain by correcting the acts done by its
subordinates; by virtue of policy of noninterference or the doctrine of separation of
powers preclude courts from intervening in the
proceeding, to avoid unnecessary vexation and
filing of premature claims to our courts of regular
justice and since the action for certiorari lies
only when there are no available plain, speedy
and adequate remedy under the proceedings.
Hence, the action is premature for the
petitioners cause of action is PREMATURE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EXHAUSTION OF
REMEDIES; HENCE THE PETITION HAS NO
MERIT.
Case No. 22: Paat v. CA
Facts: The truck of private respondent Victoria
de Guzman was seized by the DENR personnel
while on its way to Bulacan because the driver
could not produce the required documents for
the forest product found concealed in the truck.
Petitioner Jovito Layugan, CENRO ordered the
confiscation of the truck and required the owner
to explain. Private respondents failed to submit
required explanation. The DENR Regional
Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan sustained
Layugans action for confiscation and ordered
the forfeiture of the truck. Private respondents
brought the case to the DENR Secretary. Pending
appeal, private respondents filed a replevin case

before the RTC against petitioner Layugan and

Baggayan. RTC granted the same. Petitioners
moved to dismiss the case contending, inter alia,
that private respondents had no cause of action
for their failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. The trial court denied their motion.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioners aver that the trial court could not
legally entertain the suit for replevin because the
truck was under administrative seizure
proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not the instant case falls
within the exception of the doctrine.
HELD: The Court held in the negative. The Court
has consistently held that before a party is
allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it
is a pre-condition that he should have availed of
all the means of administrative processed
afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the
administrative machinery can still be resorted to
by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that
comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy
should be exhausted first before courts judicial
power can be sought. The premature invocation
of court intervention is fatal to ones cause of
action. The doctrine is a relative one and its
flexibility is called upon by the peculiarity and
uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial
settings of a case. Hence, it is disregarded (1)
when there is violation of due process, (2) when
the issue involved is purely a legal question, (3)
when the administrative action is patently illegal
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, (4)
when there is estoppels on the part of the
administrative agency concerned, (5) when
there is irreparable injury, (6) when the
respondent is a department secretary whose
acts as an alter ego of the President bears the

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________

implied and assumed approval of the latter, (7)

when to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be unreasonable, (8) when it
would amount to nullification of a claim, (9)
when the subject matter is a private land in land
case proceedings, (10) when the rule does not
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy,
and (11) when there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.A
suit for replevin cannot be sustained against the
petitioners for the subject truck taken and
retained by them for administrative forfeiture
proceedings in pursuant to Sections 68-A of OD
705, as amended. Dismissal of the replevin suit
for lack of cause of action in view of the private
respondents failure to exhaust administrative
remedies should have been the proper course of
action by the lower court instead of assuming
jurisdiction over the case and consequently
issuing the writ ordering the return of the truck.
Case 23: ANILLO vs. COSLAP
Facts: The e instant controversy stemmed from
a letterof Jessie B. Castillo, Municipal Mayor of
Bacoor, Cavite, to COSLAP Commissioner
Ernesto A. Cardio, seeking immediate
assistance in the settlement of a land dispute
brewing in Green Valley Subdivision, San Nicolas,
Bacoor, Cavite. The letter averred that squatters,
claiming to have bought portions of the
subdivision land from the estate of the late Don
Hermogenes Rodriguez, had invaded the
subdivision and turned vacant lots therein into a
squatter colony. A certain Henry Rodriguez had
been purportedly representing the estate and
claiming ownership over a big portion of the
Municipality of Bacoor including the subdivision
land by virtue of a Spanish title, and selling small
lots to clueless victims. Armed security guards
were allegedly preventing registered owners and

legitimate residents of the subdivision from

entering their own property and exacting money
from them in exchange for the peaceful
occupation thereof. Acting on the complaint,
COSLAP directed the parties to participate in a
series of mediation conferences. On 29 June
2001, Atty. Larry Pernito appeared on behalf of
the Estate of Rodriguez. He questioned the
jurisdiction of COSLAP and argued that the
matter had already been settled in the intestate
proceedings for the settlement of the Estate of
Rodriguez. The representatives of Green Valley
Homeowners Association, Inc. and Southrich
Acres, Inc., registered owners of lots within the
subdivision, prayed that their Torrens titles be
respected. At the next conference, only
complainants appeared. COSLAP directed the
parties to submit position papers, but only
complainants complied.
COSLAP issued a Resolution stating This body
upholds the contention of complainants that any
person desiring to contest their titles must do so
in a proper proceeding in accordance with law
and not thru force, intimidation and acts of
harassment. This Commission further rules that
respondents and all persons claiming rights over
the subject properties are hereby ordered to
vacate the premises and return possession
thereof to complainants.
Issue: Whether or not the resolution issued by
COSLAP is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, due to the claim of petitioner that
there was denial of due process.
Held: Even before COSLAP conducted the series
of mediation conferences, it sent through
registered mail notices to persons, including
herein petitioner, claiming ownership rights

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
derived from the Estate of Rodriguez, directing
them to appear at the mediation conference. At
the first scheduled mediation conference, a
certain Atty. Larry Pernito appeared on behalf of
the Estate of Rodriguez, questioning the
jurisdiction of COSLAP. He was the same counsel
who represented the petitioners in CA-G.R. SP
No. 68640 who eventually sought, albeit
unsuccessfully, the nullification of the COSLAP
resolution being assailed in the instant petition.
COSLAP likewise gave both parties the
opportunity to present their claims when it
directed them to submit their respective
position papers. Respondents therein and Atty.
Pernito, however, failed to appear in subsequent
proceedings or to submit any position paper.
Case 24: NESTLE PHIL vs. CA
Facts: Nestle filed a letter signed by its Corporate
Secretary, M.L. Antonio, with the SEC seeking
exemption of its proposed issuance of additional
shares to its existing principal shareholders, from
the registration requirement of Section 4 of the
Revised Securities Act and from payment of the
fee referred to in Section 6(c) of the same Act.
Issue: Whether or not SEC's ruling that the
proposed issuance of shares of the petitioner
did not fall under Section 6 (a) (4) of the Revised
Securities Act is valid.
Held: In the ruling of SEC, an issuance of
previously authorized but still unissued capital
stock may be held to be an exempt transaction
by the SEC under Section 6(b) so long as the SEC
finds that the requirements of registration under
the Revised Securities Act are "not necessary in
the public interest and for the protection of the
investors" by reason, inter alia, of the small
amount of stock that is proposed to be issued or
because the potential buyers are very limited in
number and are in a position to protect

themselves. Nestle's proposed construction

would establish an inflexible rule of automatic
exemption of issuances of additional, previously
authorized but unissued, capital stock. It is a
principle too well established to require
extensive documentation that the construction
given to a statute by an administrative agency
charged with the interpretation and application
of that statute is entitled to great respect and
should be accorded great weight by the courts,
unless such construction is clearly shown to be in
sharp conflict with the governing statute or the
Constitution and other laws. The principle that
the contemporaneous construction of a statute
by the executive officers of the government,
whose duty is to execute it, is entitled to great
respect, and should ordinarily control the
construction of the statute by the courts, is so
firmly embedded in our jurisdiction that no
authorities need be cited to support it. The
rationale for this rule relates not only to the
emergence of the multifarious needs of a
modern or modernizing society and the
establishment of diverse administrative agencies
for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also
relates to accumulation of experience and
growth of specialized capabilities by the
administrative
agency
charged
with
implementing a particular statute. executive
officials are presumed to have familiarized
themselves with all the considerations pertinent
to the meaning and purpose of the law, and to
have formed an independent, conscientious and
competent expert opinion thereon. The courts
give much weight to contemporaneous
construction because of the respect due the
government agency or officials charged with the
implementation of the law, their competence,
expertness, experience and informed judgment,
and the fact that they frequently are the drafters
of the law they interpret.

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
Case 25: BANCO FILIPINO v. CA
Facts: Banco Fil, instead of filing an appeal, filed
a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule
65 alleging that the trial court acted with grave
abuse of discretion because it did not comply
with the constitutional mandate on the form for
decisions.
ISSUE: Whether appeal to SC under Rule 65 is
proper.
HELD: NO. SC immediately dismissed petition for
the violation of the basic rules of Remedial Law.
The proper remedy from the CAs adverse
resolutions to the SC is an ordinary appeal via
petition for review under Rule 45.
Certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial
functions acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and
that there is no appeal or plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The abuse of discretion must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
duty. It seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction.
Also certiorari is not allowed when a party to a
case fails to appeal a judgment despite the
availability of that remedy. On the other hand,
Rule 45 as a petition for review seeks to correct
errors of judgment which include errors of
procedure or mistakes in the courts findings. All
errors committed in the exercise of such
jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. In the
case, Banco Fils allegations that the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion were only
bare allegations since Banco Fil even admitted
that the CA labored out a 33-page rationale on
the decision of their case, thus, the CA did not
commit any grave abuse of discretion. Note that,
the remedies of appeal and certiorari are
mutually exclusive and not alternative or

successive. Hence, the availability to Banco Fil of

the remedy under Rule 45 effectively foreclosed
its right to resort to a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. Also note that certiorari cannot be used
as a substitute for the lapsed or lost remedy of
appeal. In the case, Banco Fils recourse under
Rule 65 cannot be taken, because when it filed a
petition for certiorari to the SC, the
reglementary period for filing a petition for
review under Rule 45 to the CA had already
lapsed.
Case 26: Lumiqued v. Exeva
Facts: Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional
Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Cordillera Autonomous Region (DAR-CAR) until
President Fidel V. Ramos dismissed him from
that position pursuant to Administrative Order
No. 52 dated May 12, 1993. In view of
Lumiqueds death, his heirs instituted this
petition for certiorari and mandamus,
questioning such order. The dismissal was the
aftermath of three complaints filed by DAR-CAR
Regional Cashier and private respondent
Jeannette Obar-Zamudio with the Board of
Discipline of the DAR. The first affidavitcomplaint dated November 16, 1989, charged
Lumiqued
with
malversation
through
falsification of official documents. In her second
affidavit-complaint dated November 22, 1989,
private respondent accused Lumiqued with
violation of Commission on Audit (COA) rules
and regulations, alleging that he made
unliquidated cash advances. he third affidavitcomplaint charged Lumiqued with oppression
and harassment. Committee hearings on the
complaints were conducted on July 3 and 10,
1992, but Lumiqued was not assisted by counsel.
On the second hearing date, he moved for its

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
resetting to July 17, 1992, to enable him to
employ the services of counsel. The committee
granted the motion, but neither Lumiqued nor
his counsel appeared on the date he himself had
chosen, so the committee deemed the case
submitted for resolution.
Issue: Whether or not the due process clause
encompass the right to be assisted by counsel
during an administrative inquiry.
Held: There is nothing in the Constitution that
says that a party in a non-criminal proceeding is
entitled to be represented by counsel and that,
without such representation, he shall not be
bound by such proceedings. The assistance of
lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable.
The legal profession was not engrafted in the
due process clause such that without the
participation of its members, the safeguard is
deemed ignored or violated. The ordinary citizen
is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at
all except only with a lawyer at his side. In
administrative proceedings, the essence of due
process is simply the opportunity to explain
ones side. One may be heard, not solely by
verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even
much more creditably as it is more practicable
than oral arguments, through pleadings. An
actual hearing is not always an indispensable
aspect of due process. As long as a party was
given the opportunity to defend his interests in
due course, he cannot be said to have been
denied due process of law, for this opportunity
to be heard is the very essence of due process.
Moreover, this constitutional mandate is
deemed satisfied if a person is granted an
opportunity to seek reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. Lumiqueds
appeal and his subsequent filing of motions for
reconsideration cured whatever irregularity

attended the proceedings conducted by the

committee.
Case 27: ARATUC VS COMELEC
Facts: Tomatic Aratuc et al. sought the
suspension of the canvass then being
undertaken by respondent Board in Cotabato
city. A supervening panel headed by
Commissioner of Elections, Hon- Venancio S.
Duque, had conducted of the complaints of the
petitioners therein of alleged irregularities in the
election records in the voting centers. Before
hearing, the canvass was suspended. After
hearing the parties, the Court allowed
resumption of the canvass but issued guidelines
to be followed but thereafter modified. On July
11, 1978, respondent Board terminated its
canvass and declared the result of the voting.
The petitioners brought the resolution of
respondent Board to the Comelec. Hearing was
held on April 25, 1978, after which , the case was
declared submitted for decision. In order to
enable the Commission to decide the appeal
properly :a. It will have to go deeper into the
examination of the voting records and
registration records and in the case of voting
centers whose voting and registration records
which have not yet been submitted for the
Commission to decide to open the ballot boxes;
and b. To interview and get statements under
oath of impartial and disinterested persons from
the areato determine whether actual voting took
place on April 7, 1978, as well as those of the
military authorities in the areas affected. On
January 13, 1979, the Comelec rendered its
resolution being assailed in these cases,
declaringthe final result of the canvass.
Issue: W.O.N there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of
COMELEC.

San Beda College - Alabang

Legal Management Department
Administrative Law Case Notes
______________________________________
Held: Under Section 168 of the Revised Election
Code of 1978, "the Commission (on Elections)
shall have direct control and supervision over the
board of canvassers" and that relatedly,
Section175 of the same Code provides that it
"shall be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation
controversies." The fact of the matter is that the
authority of the Commission in reviewing
actuations of board of canvassers does not
spring from any appellate jurisdiction conferred
by any specific provision of law, for there is none
such provision anywhere in the Election Code,
but from the plenary prerogative of direct
control and supervision endowed to it by the
above-quoted provisions of Section 168. And in
administrative law, it is a too well settled
postulate to need any supporting citation here,
that a superior body or office having supervision
and control over another may do directly what
the latter is supposed to do or ought to have
done. We cannot fault respondent Comelec for
its having extended its inquiry beyond that
undertaken by the Board of Canvass On the
contrary, it must be stated that Comelec
correctly and commendably asserted its
statutory authority born of its envisaged
constitutional duties vis--vis the preservation of
the purity of elections and electoral processes
and in doing what petitioner it should not have
done.