Administrative Law

General Principles
A. Defined
that branch of public law which fixes the organization and determines the
competence of administrative authorities and indicates to the individual
remedies for violation of his rights.
Kinds
a. statutes setting up administrative authorities
b. rules, regulations or orders such of administrative authorities promulgated
pursuant to the purposes for which they were created
c. determinations, decisions and orders of such administrative authorities
made in the settlement of controversies arising in their particular fields
d. body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation and
effect of determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities
Administrations
a. Meaning - understood in two different senses:
as function - the execution, in non-judicial matters, of the law or will of the
state as expressed by competent authority
as an organization - that group or aggregate of persons in whose hands the
reins of government are for the time being
b. Distinguished from government
c. Kinds
internal - legal side of public administration, e.g. matters concerning
personnel, fiscal and planning activities
external - deals with problems of government regulations e.g., regulation of
lawful calling or profession, industries or businesses
B. Administrative Bodies or Agencies
Defined
organ of government, other than a court and other than a legislature, which
affects the rights of private properties either through adjudication or rulemaking

Creation
They are created either by:
a. constitutional provision
b. legislative enactment
c. authority of law
Criterion
a body or agency is administrative where its function is primarily regulatory
even if it conducts hearings and determines controversies to carry out its
regulatory duty. on its rule-making authority, it is administrative when it
does not have discretion to determine what the law shall be but merely
prescribes details for the enforcement of the law
Types
a. bodies set up to function in situations where the government is offering
some gratuity, grant or special privilege, e.g., bureau of lands
b. bodies set up to function in situations where in the government is seeking to
carry on certain of the actual businesses of government e.g., BIR
c. bodies set up to function in situations wherein the government is performing
some business service for the public, e.g., MWSS
d. bodies set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to
regulate business affected with public interest, e.g., LTFRB
e. bodies set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking
under the police power to regulate private business and individuals, e.g.,
SEC
f. bodies set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to
adjust individual controversies because of a strong social policy involved, e.g.
ECC
g. bodies set up to make the government a private party, e.g. GSIS
Powers of Administrative Bodies
A. Powers of Administrative Bodies
1. quasi-legislative or rule-making power
2. quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power; and
3. determinative powers
B. Quasi-legislative Power
Nature

 this is the exercise of delegated legislative power, involving no discretion as to

what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the
execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself.
rules and regulations issued by the administrative authorities pursuant to
the powers delegated to them have the force and effect of law; they are
binding on all persons subject to them, and the courts will take judicial
notice of them.
Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulations
a. Supplementary or Detailed Legislation - they are rules and regulations
"to fix the details" in the execution and enforcement of a policy set out in
the law. They are in the nature of subordinate legislation, and designed to
implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. They
usually

implement

existing

law,

imposing

general,

extra-statutory

obligations pursuant to authority properly delegated by Congress

[Republic (FDA) v. Drugmaker's Laboratories. G.R. No. 190387, March 5,
2014]. An example would be the Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Labor Code.
b. Interpretative Legislation - they are rules and regulations construing or
interpreting the provisions of a statute to be enforced ; they are intended
to clarify or explain existing statutory regulations under which the
administrative body operates [Republic v Drugmaker's, supra]. Examples
are BIR Circulars, Bangko Sentral Circulars, etc.
They are binding on all concerned until they are changed; they have
the force and effect of law, and are entitled to great respect; they have in
their favor the presumption of legality [Gonzales v Land Bank, 183 SCRA
520]. The erroneous application of the law by public officers doest not bar
a subsequent correct application of the law [Manila Jockey Club v Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 103533, December 15, 1998].
c. Contingent Legislation - these are rules and regulations made by an
administrative authority on the existence of certain facts or things upon
which the enforcement of the law depends. See: Cruz v Youngberg, 56
Phil 234.
Requisites of Validity:
a. Issued under Authority of Law - there must be a valid law which delegates
legislative powers to the administrative agency. See: Olsen v Aldanese, 43
Phil 64.

b. within the scope and purview of the law

The

power

of

administrative

officials

to

promulgate

rules

in

the

implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the

legislative enactment. The implementing rules and regulations of the law cannot
extend the law or expand its coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is
vested in the legislature. However, administrative bodies are allowed, under their
power of subordinate legislation, to implement the broad policies laid down
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no
judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been availed of and
exhausted. See Aquino v. Mariano, 129 SCRA 532; National Development Company
v. Hervilla, 151 SCRA 200; Union Bank v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 198.

1. Reasons.
a. If relief is first sought from a superior administrative agency, resort to
the courts may be unnecessary. In Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas,
G.R. No. 131442, July 10, 2003, the petitioners, instead of appealing
the action of the Regional Executive Director to the DENR Secretary,
immediately filed their complaint with the Manila RTC, thus depriving
the DENR Secretary the opportunity to review the decision of his
subordinate. Under applicable jurisprudence, petitioners' omission
renders their complaint dismissible for lack of cause of action.
b. The administrative agency should be given a chance to correct its
error. Thus, in Bernardo v. Abalos, G.R. No. 137266, December 5,
2001, for failure of the petitioners to file a motion for reconsideration
from the resolution of the Comelec en banc dismissing the complaint
for insufficiency of evidence, the petition for certiorari filed with the
Supreme Court was deemed premature and was dismissed. It was
held that the purpose of the motion for reconsideration is to give the
Comelec an opportunity to correct the error imputed to it.
c. Principles of comity and convenience require that the courts stay their
hand until the administrative processes are completed.
d. Since judicial review of administrative decisions is usually made
through special civil actions, such proceedings will not normally
prosper if there is another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. This was also cited by the Supreme Court as
one of the reasons for the dismissal of the petition for certiorari in
Bernardo v. Abalos, supra.. 2

2. Thus, in Lopez v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 127139, February 19, 1999, it was held
that the rule must be observed in order to prevent unnecessary and premature
resort to the courts. Besides, Sec. 187, R.A. 7160 (Local Gov exhausted before the
constitutionality or legality of a tax ordinance may be challenged in court. In
National Irrigation Administration v. Enciso, G.R. No. 142571, May 5, 2006,
where the contractor tasked to widen a river immediately sued the National
irrigation Administration in court for payment without first filing a claim with the
Commission on Audit, it was held that the contractors failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is fatal to his collection suit.
3. It must be noted, however, that only those decisions of administrative agencies
made in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers are subject to the rule on exhaustion
of administrative remedies [Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators v.
Philippine Coconut Authority, G.R. No. 110526, February 10, 1998] . In like
manner, the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction applies only where the
administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory powers. Thus,
where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation
issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative
function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to.pass upon the same [Smart
Communications v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R.
No. 151908, August 12, 2003].
B. Corollary Principles:
Doctrine of Prior Resort, also known as the doctrine of primary
administrative jurisdiction: Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon
an administrative body to act upon a matter, no resort to the courts may be made
before such administrative body shall have acted upon the matter.
a) In Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426, it was
held that inasmuch as the memorandum of agreement between IEI and MMIC was
derived from the coal-operating contract and intrinsically tied up with the right to
develop coal-bearing lands, lEIs cause of action was not merely rescission of
contract but the reversion of the operation of the coal blocks. Accordingly, the case
should have been filed with the Board of Energy Development, not with the
Regional Trial Court. See also Commissioner of Customs v. Navarro, 77 SCRA
264; Almendras Mining v. Office of the Insurance Commissioner, 160 SCRA
656; PCGG v. Pena, 159 SCRA 556.
b) I n Regional Director, DECS Region VII v. Court of Appeals, supra., the
Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to suspend action on the cases
brought before the latter until the final outcome of the administrative investigation,
conformably with the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction. In Garcia v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100579, June 6, 2001, where petitioner, who was at

that time the Administrator of Philippine Coconut Administration, after having been
preventively suspended on the basis of administrative charges filed against him,
immediately filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, it was held
that resort to the courts was premature and precipitate, because the administrative
proceedings were still on-going. Furthermore, from the decision of the Philcoa
Board, the administrative remedy of appeal to the Civil Service Commission would
still be available to the administrator. See also Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 106028, May 9, 2001.
c) Questions relative to compliance with the requirements for the conversion of
subdivision lots are properly cognizable by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board, not by the regular courts. Thus, no resort to the court may be made before
the administrative body shall have acted upon the matter [Cristobal v. Court of
Appeals, 291 SCRA 122].
d) The enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations fall within the primary
and special responsibilities of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources; thus, the assumption by the RTC of jurisdiction over the suit filed by
respondents constitutes an encroachment into the domain of the administrative
agency [Paat v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167]. Thus, in Sy v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 121587, March 9, 1999, the Supreme Court said that the
lumber forfeited under RD. 705 which the petitioner sought to recover came under
the custody of the DENR, and all actions seeking to recover possession thereof
should be directed to that agency, before any resort to the courts may be made.
e) In the-matter of issuing licenses to operate radio stations, the National
Telecommunications Commission is in a better position than the courts to
determine to whom the privilege should be granted in order that public interest
may be served. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction prevents the court from
arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy which falls under the
jurisdiction of a tribunal possessed with special competence [Crusaders
Broadcasting System v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No.
139583, May 31, 2000].
f) Executive Order No. 1008 vests in the Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC) original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or
connected with construction contracts entered into by parties who have agreed to
submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration [Philrock v. Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission, G.R. Nos. 132848-49, June 28, 2001].
Doctrine of finality of administrative action: No resort to the courts will
be allowed unless the administrative action has been completed and there is
nothing left to be done in the administrative structure. See Sta. Rosa Mining v.
Leido, 156 SCRA 1. Because the petitioner did not take an appeal from the order
of the Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, but went directly to court, it was held that the court action was made

prematurely and the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies [SSS

Employees Association v. Bathan-Velasco, G.R. No. 108765, August 27,
1999] .
A party aggrieved must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative
procedure to obtain relief, but must also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion
before seeking judicial intervention in order to give that administrative agency an
opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and
premature resort to the courts [Zabat v. Court of Appeals, 338 SCRA 551],
Effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The jurisdiction of
the court is not affected; but the complainant is deprived of a cause of action which
is a ground for a motion to dismiss. However, if no motion to dismiss is filed on this
ground, there is deemed to be a waiver. See Soto v. Jareno, 144 SCRA 116;
Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA, 166 SCRA 533.
Exceptions to the doctrine:
1. Doctrine of qualified political agency (alter ego doctrine). See Kilusang
Bayan, etc. v. Dominguez, 205 SCRA 92. In Nazareno v. Court of
Appeals, 267 SCRA 589, the Supreme Court held that when the
Undersecretary of Natural Resources denied the motion for reconsideration,
he was acting on behalf of the Secretary of Natural Resources; accordingly,
administrative remedies had been exhausted.
a) Except where the law expressly provides for exhaustion. See Tan v. Director of
Forestry, 125 SCRA 302, where the failure of the petitioner to appeal the order of
the Secretary of Natural Resources to the President of the Philippines (who issued
Executive Proclamation No. 238, withdrawing the area from private exploration and
establishing it as the Olongapo Watershed Forest Reserve) was deemed fatal to the
petition.
b) In Ca/o v. Fuertes, 5 SCRA 399, where appeal had already been made to the
President and, before the President could act on the appeal, the same was
withdrawn, there was deemed to have been failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Besides, by appealing to the President, the party recognized a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy still open to him in the ordinary course of law and
thus, his special civil action must fail. See also National Development Company
v. Hervilla, supra., Industrial Power Sales v. Sinsuat, 160 SCRA 19. However,
where the appeal to the Office of the President had not been acted upon (and
despite follow ups for two months, no reply was received by the petitioner), and in
the meantime, the Philippine Coconut Authority, pursuant to the assailed
resolution, was issuing certificates of registration indiscriminately, the Supreme
Court held that the Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators was justified in

filing the case in court [Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators v.

Philippine Coconut Authority, 286 SCRA 109].
c) In Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
103953, March 25, 1999, it was held that the decisions of the DAR Secretary
cannot be questioned before the DARAB. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is
improper in this case, because Sec. 54 of R.A. 6657 specifically provides that
decisions and awards of the DAR shall be brought up to the Court of Appeals by
certiorari..
2. Where the administrative remedy is fruitless, e.g., suit for recovery of title to
office must be instituted within one year from illegal ouster, otherwise the
action prescribes.
3. Where there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency
4. Where the issue involved is purely a legal question [Palma- Fernandez v. De
la Paz, 160 SCRA 751; Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA supra.; Samson
v. NLRC, 253 SCRA 112]. In Castro v. Secretary Gloria, G.R. No.
132174,August 20, 2001, the Supreme Court said that there is a question
of law when the doubts or differences arise as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubts or differences arise
as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts.
5. Where the administrative action is patently illegal, amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction [Industrial Power Sales v. Sinsuat, supra.]. In
Cabada v. Alunan, 260 SCRA 838, the Supreme Court said that the
Commissioner of the National Police Commission who denied petitioners
appeal to the Secretary of Interior and Local Government acted in a patently
illegal manner, because only the Secretary of DILG could act on the appeal
and that the National Police Commission, being a collegial body, cannot be
bound by the act of an individual Commissioner. 6
6. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction. In Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438, the inaction of the PCGG on the motion
filed by the respondent and co-respondent [it took seven years before the
PCGG filed its motion to dismiss based on failure to exhaust administrative
remedies] gave rise to unreasonable delay.
7. Where there is irreparable injury or threat thereof, unless judicial recourse
is immediately made [De Lara v. Cloribel, 14 SCRA 269]. In National
Food Authority v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 470, because the
contracts of the security agencies had already been terminated and their
replacements were hired, appeal to the Board of Trustees of the National
Food Authority and to the Secretary of Agriculture was not a plain, speedy

and adequate remedy in the course of law. The respondents had to go to

court to stop the implementation of the new contracts. '
8. In land cases, where the subject matter is private land [Soto v. Jareno,
supra.].
9. Where the law does not make exhaustion a condition precedent to judicial
recourse.
10.Where observance of the doctrine will result in the nullification of the claim.
11.Where there are special reasons or circumstances demanding immediate
court action.
12.When due process of law is clearly violated [Anzaldo v. Clave, 119 SCRA
353; Zambales Chromite v. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 261], In Pagara
v. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 606, because the parcels of land of the
respondent were placed under Operation Land Transfer of the Land Reform
Program and the certificates of title issued to the petitioners without the
respondent having been given an opportunity to be heard, the Supreme
Court said that there was denial of due process, and therefore, there was no
need for the respondent to exhaust administrative remedies.
13. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy
[Quisumbing v. Judge Gumban, 193 SCRA 520]. In Estuerte v. Court of
Appeals, 193 SCRA 541, the Supreme Court said that in a civil action for
damages, the courts concern is whether or not damages, personal to the
plaintiff, were caused by the acts of the defendants; it can proceed
independently of the administrative action. Accordingly, the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply.
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
A. Rule: Except when the Constitution requires or allows it, judicial review may be
granted or withheld as Congress chooses. Thus, the law may provide that a
determination made by an administrative agency shall be final and irreviewable. In
such a case, there is no violation of due process.
B. Bases for Judicial Review:
1. The Constitution. For instance, Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, Constitution, provides: x x x
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or
ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by
the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
2. Statutes.

3. General principles of law. In San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor

(1975), it was held that there is an underlying power in the Courts to scrutinize the
acts of administrative agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction although no
right of review is given by statute. This is designed to keep the administrative
agency within its jurisdiction and to protect substantial rights of parties affected by
its decisions. It is part of the system of checks and balances which restricts the
separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudication. In
Continental Marble v. NLRC, 161 SCRA 151, the Supreme Court held that by the
nature of his functions, the voluntary arbitrator acts in a quasi-judicial capacity.
The Court must pass upon his work where a question of law is involved, or where a
showing of abuse of authority or discretion in their official acts is properly raised in
a petition for certiorari. In Unicraft Industries International v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 134903, March 23, 2001, it was held that the decision of a
Voluntary Arbitrator, although generally accorded finality, may still be subject to
judicial review if there was a violation of due process. In this case, the omission to
give the petitioner a chance to present evidence is a clear violation of a partys
constitutional right, and has the effect of rendering the Arbitrators judgment null
and void.
C. Methods of obtaining Judicial Review: Classes:
1. Statutory or non-statutory
a) Statutory - available pursuant to specific statutory provisions.
b) Non-statutory - where there is no express statute granting review, relief is
obtained by means of the common law remedies, or by the prerogative writs of
certiorari, mandamus, habeas corpus, quo warranto or prohibition. [NOTE: If
statutory methods for judicial review are available, they are ordinarily exclusive,
and the use of non-statutory methods will not likely be permitted.]
2. Direct or collateral:
a) Direct - attempt to question in subsequent proceedings the administrative action
for lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, etc..
i) In Co v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692,
it was held that the citizenship of an individual cannot be attacked in a collateral
proceeding.
b) Collateral - relief from administrative action sought in a proceeding the primary
purpose of which is some relief other than the setting aside of the judgment,
although an attack on the judgment may be incidentally involved, e.g., a damage
suit against the administrative officials.
D. What court has jurisdiction.

1. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court of Appeals
shall have appellate jurisdiction over judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax
Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized
by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
E. Questions which may be subject of judicial review:
1. Questions of Law.
2. Questions of Fact. Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally
conclusive upon the courts if supported by substantial evidence; thus, Courts are
precluded from reviewing questions of fact, except:
a. When expressly allowed by statute;
b. Fraud, imposition or mistake other than error of judgment in
evaluating the evidence [Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion, 59 Phil
440]; or
c. Error in appreciation of the pleadings and in the interpretation of the
documentary evidence presented by the parties [Tan Tiang Teek v.
Commission, 40 O.G., 6th Supp. 125]. 3
3. Mixed Questions of Law and Fact [Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of
Facts]: Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved
with and dependent upon a question of law as to be in substance and effect a
decision on the latter, the Court will, in order to decide the legal question, examine
the entire record including the evidence if necessary.
F. Guidelines for the exercise of the power.
1. Findings of fact are respected as long as they are supported by substantial
evidence, even if not overwhelming or preponderant. See Bagsican v. Court of
Appeals, 141 SCRA 226; Lianga Bay Logging v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 357;
Beautifont v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 481; Planas Commercial v. NLRC, G.R. No.
121696, February 11, 1999; Artuz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142444, September
13, 2001.
2. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the
credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the
administrative agency on the sufficiency of evidence. The Court recognizes that the
trial court or the administrative body, as the trier of facts, is in a better position to
assess the demeanor of the witnesses and the credibility of their testimonies as
they were within its proximal view during the hearing or investigation [Mollaneda v.
Umacob, G.R. No. 140128, June 6, 2001].

3. The administrative decision in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only
be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, collusion or error of law.
See Anzaldo v. Clave, supra., Atlas Consolidated v. Factoran, 154 SCRA 49.
G. Judicial Review is not trial de novo: It is merely an ascertainment of whether
the findings of the administrative agency are consistent with law, free from fraud or
imposition, and supported by evidence.