Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

VICTORIA MILLING vs.

SSS The CHR has the power to investigate but not to adjudicate
There is a distinction between an administrative rule or alleged human right violation.
regulation and an administrative interpretation of a law whose
enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body. When an Investigate means to examine, inquire, explore.
administrative agency promulgates rules and Adjudicate to resolve, rule, settle, decide.
regulations, it "makes" a new law with the force and
effect of a valid law, while when it renders an opinion Megaworld Globus Asia vs. DSM Construction
or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets a Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
pre-existing law. Rules and regulations when bodies, which have acquired expertise because their
promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally
conferred upon the administrative agency by law, accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the
partake of the nature of a statute, and compliance Court of Appeals.
therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction
provided in the law. A rule is binding on the courts so long NAPOCOR vs. LEASTO
as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its Arbitral decision accord respect and finality by the
scope is within the statutory authority granted by the Court
legislature, On the other hand, administrative interpretation Exemption to the rule :
of the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that 1. on the ground of promissory estoppels
finally determine what the law means. 2. And involving a legal issue and not a factual finding.

NFA VS. MASADA Security LUPANGCO vs. CA


The general rule is that construction of a statute by an Quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied to the action,
administrative agency charged with the task of interpreting or discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or
applying the same is entitled to great weight and respect. The bodies required to investigate facts, or ascertain the
Court, however, is not bound to apply said rule where such existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions
executive interpretation, is clearly erroneous, or when from them, as a basis for their official action, and to
there is no ambiguity in the law interpreted, or when the exercise discretion of a judicial nature. To expound
language of the words used is clear and plain, as in the case thereon, quasi-judicial adjudication would mean a
at bar. Besides, administrative interpretations are at best determination of rights, privileges and duties resulting in a
advisory for it is the Court that finally determines what the decision or order which applies to a specific situation . This
law means. Hence, the interpretation given by the labor does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability
agencies in the instant case which went as far as issued by the administrative body to implement its purely
supplementing what is otherwise not stated in the law cannot administrative policies and functions like Resolution No. 105
bind this Court. which was adopted by the respondent PRC as a measure to
preserve the integrity of licensure examinations.
SGMC REALTY CORP. vs. Office of the President JURISDICTION - the competence of an office or body
Administrative rule or regulation, in order to be valid, to act on a given matter or decide a certain question.
must not contradict but conform to the provisions of CHIN vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
the enabling law. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
For it is axiomatic that administrative rules derive their petition.
validity from the statute that they are intended to implement. AZARCON vs. Sandiganbayan
Any rule which is not consistent with statute itself is null and The court has no jurisdiction over the person of Azarcon.
void.
DUE PROCESS
Prospective or retroactive operation SANTIAGO vs. Alikpala
CIR VS. AZUCENA
An administrative rule interpretive of a statute, and not First requirement of procedural due process, namely,
declarative of certain rights and corresponding the existence of the court or tribunal clothed with
obligations, is given retroactive effect as of the date of judicial, or quasi-judicial, power to hear and determine
the effectivity of the statute. the matter before it.
There is the express admission in the statement of facts that
DADULO vs. CA respondents, as a court-martial, were not convened to try
Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to petitioner but someone else, the action taken against
be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the petitioner being induced solely by a desire to avoid the effects
time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that of prescription; it would follow then that the absence of a
sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive competent court or tribunal is most marked and undeniable.
application of procedural laws cannot be considered violative Such a denial of due process is therefore fatal to its
of any personal rights because no vested right may attach to assumed authority to try petitioner.
nor arise therefrom. NDC vs. Collector of Customs
Even in admin proceeding due process must be
SAN MIGUEL VS. INCIONG observed.
The Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing We find this action proper for it really appears that petitioner
Presidential Decree 851 is even more emphatic in declaring Rocha was not given an opportunity to prove that the
that earnings and other remunerations which are not part of television set complained of is not a cargo that needs to be
the basic salary shall not be included in the computation of manifested as required by Section 2521 of the Tariff and
the 13th-month pay. Customs Code. Under said section, in order that an imported
article or merchandise may be considered a cargo that should
ASTURIAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM be manifested it is first necessary that it be so established for
Considering that the Bureau of Customs is the office charged the reason that there are other effects that a vessel may
with implementing and enforcing the provisions of our Tariff carry that are excluded from the requirement of the law,
and Customs Code, the construction placed by it thereon among which are the personal effects of the members of the
should be given controlling weight. crew. The fact that the set in question was claimed by the
In applying the doctrine or principle of respect for customs authorities not to be within the exception does not
administrative or practical construction, the courts often automatically make the vessel liable. It is still necessary that
refer to several factors which may be regarded as bases of the vessel, its owner or operator, be given a chance to show
the principle, as factors leading the courts to give the otherwise. This is precisely what petitioner Rocha has
principle controlling weight in particular instances, or as requested in his letter. Not only was he denied this chance,
independent rules in themselves. These factors are the but respondent collector immediately imposed upon the
respect due the governmental agencies charged with vessel the huge fine of P5,000.00. This is a denial of the
administration, their competence, expertness, experience, elementary rule of due process.
and informed judgment and the fact that they frequently are
the drafters of the law they interpret; that the agency is the FABELLA vs. CA
one on which the legislature must rely to advise it as to the In administrative proceedings, due process has been
practical working out of the statute, and practical application recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or
of the statute presents the agency with unique opportunity constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which
and experiences for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or may affect a respondents legal rights; (2) a real opportunity
improvements in the statute. to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to
CARINO VS. CHR present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend
ones rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent It is sufficient that substantive due process requirement of
jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged fairness and reasonableness be observed.
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as
impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is
supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration RES JUDICATA
during the hearing or contained in the records or made known Judge Basilla vs. Becamon
to the parties affected.
In the present case, the various committees formed by DECS Applying the principle of res judicata or bar by prior
to hear the administrative charges against private judgment, the present administrative case becomes
respondents did not include a representative of the local or, dismissible.
in its absence, any existing provincial or national teachers The Court held that applied the principle of res judicata or bar
organization as required by Section 9 of RA by prior judgment. Under the said doctrine, a matter that has
4670. Accordingly, these committees were deemed to been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be
have no competent jurisdiction. Thus, all proceedings deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it
undertaken by them were necessarily void. They could arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties
not provide any basis for the suspension or dismissal of and for the same cause. It provides that a final judgment on
private respondents. The inclusion of a representative of a the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is
teachers organization in these committees was indispensable conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies; and
to ensure an impartial tribunal. It was this requirement constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving
that would have given substance and meaning to the the same claim, demand, or cause of action. Res judicata is
right to be heard. Indeed, in any proceeding, the based on the ground that the party to be affected, or some
essence of procedural due process is embodied in the other with whom he is in privity, has litigated the same
basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to matter in the former action in a court of competent
be heard. jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again.
This principle frees the parties from undergoing all over again
LUPO vs. Administrative Action Board the rigors of unnecessary suits and repetitious trials. At the
The requirements of due process in administrative same time, it prevents the clogging of court dockets. Equally
proceedings and these are: important, res judicata stabilizes rights and promotes the rule
(1) the right to a hearing which includes, the right to present of law.
one's case and submit evidence in support thereof;
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; NHA vs. Almeida
(3) the decision must have something to support itself,
(4) the evidence must be substantial, and substantial In fine, it should be remembered that quasi-judicial powers
evidence means such evidence as a reasonable mind must will always be subject to true judicial powerthat which is
accept as adequate to support a conclusion; held by the courts. Quasi-judicial power is defined as that
(5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at power of adjudication of an administrative agency for the
the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed "formulation of a final order." This function applies to the
to the parties affected; actions, discretion and similar acts of public administrative
(6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or officers or bodies who are required to investigate facts, or
his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and
subordinate; to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. However,
(7) the board or body should in all controversial questions, administrative agencies are not considered courts, in their
render its decision in such manner that the parties to the strict sense. The doctrine of separation of powers reposes the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the three great powers into its three (3) branchesthe
reason for the decision rendered. legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Each department
is co-equal and coordinate, and supreme in its own sphere.
MADENILLA vs. CSC Accordingly, the executive department may not, by its own
No denial of due process. fiat, impose the judgment of one of its agencies, upon the
"Due process of law implies the right of the person affected judiciary. Indeed, under the expanded jurisdiction of the
thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces Supreme Court, it is empowered to "determine whether or not
judgment upon the question of life, liberty, and property in its there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, instrumentality of the Government."
every material fact which bears on the question of the light in
the matter involved." Abelita vs. Doria
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard.
The presence of a party is not always the cornerstone of due While the present case and the administrative case are based
process. In the case at bar, any defect was cured by the on the same essential facts and circumstances, the doctrine
filing of a motion for reconsideration. of res judicata will not apply.
There is no identity of causes of action in the cases. While
KANLAON Construction vs. NLRC identity of causes of action is not required in the application
Gen. Rule : Only lawyers are allowed to appear before of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment,
the labor arbiter it is required that there must always be identity of
Exemption: parties in the first and second cases.
Non-lawyer member of the organization
Non-lawyer representing himself as party to the case For res judicata to apply, the following requisites must
Member of the legal aid duly recognized by IBP or DOJ be present:
(a) the former judgment or order must be final;
Engineer Estacio can appear however his appearance (b) it must be a judgment or order on the merits,
on behalf of Kanlaon required written proof of that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the
authorization. Absent this authority whatever evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the
statement and declaration made before the arbiter is trial of the case;
not binding to the petitioner. (c) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
First LEPANTO vs. CA and
Clearly, Circular 1-91 effectively repealed or superseded (d) there must be, between the first and second
Article 82 of E.O. 226 insofar as the manner and method of actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of
enforcing the right to appeal from decisions of the BOI are cause of action; this requisite is satisfied if the two
concerned. Appeals from decisions of the BOI, which by actions are substantially between the same parties.
statute was previously allowed to be filed directly with the
Supreme Court, should now be brought to the Court of SEC vs. INTERPORT SERVICES
Appeals. SEC retains jurisdiction to investigate
Section 53 of the Securities Regulations Code clearly provides
Manuel vs. Villena that criminal complaints for violations of rules and regulations
enforced or administered by the SEC shall be referred to the
Technical rule of procedure are not strictly enforced and due Department of Justice (DOJ) for preliminary investigation,
process of law in the strict judicial sense is not indispensable. while the SEC nevertheless retains limited investigatory
powers. Additionally, the SEC may still impose the appropriate reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct in
administrative sanctions under Section 54 of the deportation proceeding.
aforementioned law.
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SEC vs. GMA Network, Inc. REMEDIES
NEW SUN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION vs. SB
Rate-fixing is a legislative function which concededly has been BRGY. SUN VALLEY PARANAQUE
delegated to the SEC by R.A. No. 3531 and other pertinent
laws. The due process clause, however, permits the courts The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
to determine whether the regulation issued by the SEC a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is
is reasonable and within the bounds of its rate-fixing that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out
authority and to strike it down when it arbitrarily their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the
infringes on a persons right to property. specialized areas of their respective competence. The
rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser
VIGAN ELECTRIC CO. vs. Public Service Commission expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of
controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of
Partakes of the nature of a quasi-judicial function and justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of
that having been issued without previous notice and administrative redress has been completed.
hearing said order is clearly violative of the due
process clause, and, hence, null and void. ARLIN OBIASCA VS. JEANE BASALLOTE
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
QJ notice and hearing requirement. requires that, for reasons of law, comity and convenience,
where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION administrative review and provides a system of administrative
Bagonghasa vs. DAR appeal or reconsideration, the courts will not entertain a case
unless the available administrative remedies have been
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given
from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction was an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the
initially lodged with an administrative body of special administrative forum. In Orosa v. Roa, the Court ruled that if
competence. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not an appeal or remedy obtains or is available within the
allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before
controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with resort can be made to the courts. While the doctrine of
an administrative body of special competence. The Office of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to certain
the DAR Secretary is in a better position to resolve the exceptions, these are not present in this case.
particular issue of non-issuance of a notice of coverage.
EXEMPTION
NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. UNIWIDE SALES REPUBLIC vs. CARLITO LACAP
Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
courts will not determine a controversy where the issues for which are based on sound public policy and practical
resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and accepted exceptions, such as:
services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking
and intricate matters of fact. In other words, if a case is such the doctrine;
that its determination requires the expertise, specialized (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently
training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction
to the court is had even if the matter may well be within the that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
latter's proper jurisdiction. The objective of the doctrine of (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to
primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining make the rule impractical and oppressive;
whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will
after an administrative agency has determined some question ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;
or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding (f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
before the court. (g) when its application may cause great and
irreparable damage;
EXEMPTION to Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction (h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT remedies has been rendered moot;
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction would ordinarily preclude (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
us from resolving the matter, which calls for a ruling to be remedy;
first made by the Board. It is the latter that is vested by law (k) when strong public interest is involved; and,
with exclusive and original jurisdiction to settle any dispute (l) in quo warranto proceedings. Exceptions (c) and (e)
arising under RA 8291, as well as other matters related are applicable to the present case.
thereto. However, both the GSIS and respondents have
extensively discussed the merits of the case in their KHRISTINE REA REGINO VS. PANGASINAN COLLEGES
respective pleadings and did not confine their arguments to OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
the issue of jurisdiction. Respondents, in fact, submit that we
should resolve the main issue on the ground that it is Petitioner is not asking for the reversal of the policies of PCST.
a purely legal question. Respondents further state that a Neither is she demanding it to allow her to take her final
remand of the case to the Board would merely result examinations; she was already enrolled in another
in unnecessary delay and needless expense for the educational institution. A reversal of the acts complained of
parties. would not adequately redress her grievances; under the
circumstances, the consequences of respondents' acts could
GREGORIO VIGILAR SEC. of DPWH VS. ARNULFO no longer be undone or rectified.
AQUINO Second, exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises when there is competence on the part of the administrative
as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to body to act upon the matter complained of. Administrative
the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said question at agencies are not courts; they are neither part of the judicial
best could be resolved only tentatively by the administrative system, nor are they deemed judicial tribunals. Specifically,
authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not with the CHED does not have the power to award damages. Hence,
them but with the courts of justice. petitioner could not have commenced her case before the
Commission.
Geraldine Gaw Guy vs. The Board of Commissioners of Third, the exhaustion doctrine admits of exceptions, one of
the Bureau of immigration which arises when the issue is purely legal and well within the
jurisdiction of the trial court. Petitioner's action for damages
Judicial intervention, however, should be granted in cases inevitably calls for the application and the interpretation of
where the claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are the Civil Code, a function that falls within the jurisdiction of
the courts.