Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7


DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS respect is not restricted by constitutional provisions, it is supreme, and the
legislature may decide for itself what offices are suitable, necessary, or convenient.
The Constitution provides that the President "shall have control of all the executive Necessarily, such offices created by the legislature is wholly within the power of
departments, bureaus, and offices" and shall "exercise general supervision over that body, and it may prescribe the mode of filling the office and the powers and
all local governments as may be provided by law". Thus, in the exercise of his duties of the incumbent, and, if it sees fit, abolish the office. (Eugenio v. CSC)
executive power under the Constitution, the President may act through the heads
of the executive departments, the latter being his mere alter ego whose acts are Petitioner is a presidential appointee who belongs to career service of the Civil
presumptively his acts as well. In accordance with this principle, the President may Service. Being a presidential appointee, he comes under the direct disciplining
order an investigation of the act or conduct of those subordinate to him to ensure authority of the President. This is in line with the well settled principle that the
that the laws are faithfully executed. (Planas v. Gil) power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint conferred to the President
by Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. Thus, it is ineluctably clear that
Under a system of government of delegated powers, under which delegation Memorandum Order No. 164, which created a committee to investigate the
legislative power vests in the Philippine Legislature and executive power vests in administrative charge against petitioner, was issued pursuant to the power of
the Governor-General, and under which delegation a general power of removal of the President. (Larin v. Executive Secretary)
appointment resides in the Governor-General and a specified power of
appointment resides in the Philippine Legislature, the latter cannot directly or POWER OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
indirectly perform functions of an executive nature through the designation of its
presiding officers as majority members of a body which has executive functions. Administrative agencies may exercise quasi-legislative or rule-making powers only
The Legislature may add to, but may not diminish, the power of appointment of the if there exists a law which delegates these powers to them. Accordingly, the rules
Governor-General. (Government of the Philippines v. Springer) so promulgated must be within the confines of the granting statute and must
involve no discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the
The Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent body, can propose details in the execution or enforcement of the policy set out in the law itself, so as
amendments. In that capacity, only a majority vote is needed. It would be an to conform with the doctrine of separation of powers and, as an adjunct, the
indefensible proposition to assert that the three-fourth votes required when it sits doctrine of non-delegability of legislative power. (Republic v. Drugmakers
as a legislative body applies as well when it has been convened as the agency Laboratories)
through which amendments could be proposed. That is not a requirement as far
as a constitutional convention is concerned. (Occena v. COMELEC) The COMELEC has the power to liberally interpret or even suspend its rules of
procedure in the interest of justice, including obtaining a speedy disposition of all
CREATION, REORGANIZATION AND ABOLITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE matters pending before it. This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the
AGENCIES effective and efficient implementation of its objectives ensuring the holding of
free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, as well as achieving just,
The elementary rule in administrative law and the law on public officers is that a expeditious, and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and
public office may be created through any of the following modes, to wit, either (1) proceeding brought before the COMELEC. Unlike an ordinary civil action, an
by the Constitution (fundamental law), (2) by law (statute duly enacted by election contest is imbued with public interest. It involves not only the adjudication
Congress), or (3) by authority of law. Verily, Congress can delegate the power to of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also the paramount need
create positions. This has been settled by decisions of the Court upholding the of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real choice of the electorate. And
validity of reorganization statutes authorizing the President to create, abolish or the tribunal has the corresponding duty to ascertain, by all means within its
merge offices in the executive department. Thus, at various times, Congress has command, whom the people truly chose as their rightful leader. (Hayudini v.
vested power in the President to reorganize executive agencies and redistribute COMELEC)
functions, and particular transfers under such statutes have been held to be within
the authority of the President. (Secretary of DOTC v. Mabalot) This Court recognizes that the CTAs findings can only be disturbed on appeal if
they are not supported by substantial evidence, or there is a showing of gross error
Except for such offices as are created by the Constitution, the creation of public or abuse on the part of the Tax Court. In the absence of any clear and convincing
offices is primarily a legislative function. In so far as the legislative power in this proof to the contrary, this Court must presume that the CTA rendered a decision



which is valid in every respect. It has been a long-standing policy and practice of done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former
the Court to respect the conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies such as the CTA, a with that of the latter. (Carpio v. Executive Secretary)
highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases.
(CIR v. MERALCO) The President can, by virtue of his power of control, review, modify, alter or nullify
any action, or decision, of his subordinate in the executive departments, bureaus,
The vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in administrative bodies or offices under him. He can exercise this power motu proprio without need of any
is not unconstitutional, unreasonable and oppressive. It has been necessitated by appeal from any party. (Blaquera v. Alcala)
the growing complexity of the modern society. More and more administrative
bodies are necessary to help in the regulation of societys ramified activities. DELEGATION OF POWER
Specialized in the particular field assigned to them, they can deal with the problems
thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature In order to determine whether there is undue delegation of legislative power, the
or the courts of justice. Furthermore, such administrative officers, like the Labor Court has adopted two tests: the completeness test and the sufficient standard
Secretary, are given the power to restrict and regulate in accordance with the grant test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions
of police power. (Philippine Associates of Service Exporters v. Torres) when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing
he will have to do is to enforce it. The second test mandates adequate guidelines
Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving the illegal or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegates authority and
dismissal of officers and employees of government-owned or controlled prevent the delegation from running riot. (Disini v. Secretary of Justice)
corporations. Such cases must be brought before the Civil Service Commission
pursuant to the Civil Service Law, and final resolutions of the CSC are appealable Although the power to tax is inherent in the State, the same is not true for the LGUs
to the Court of Appeals. (Mateo v. CA) to whom the power must be delegated by Congress and must be exercised within
the guidelines and limitations that Congress may provide. (City of Manila v. Colet)
As a rule, mandamus will lie only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty
but not a discretionary function. A ministerial duty is one which is so clear and Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be
specific as to leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its performance. On delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may
the other hand, a discretionary duty is that which by its nature requires the exercise be enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a
of judgment. Since the authority to grant or deny a permit is a discretionary duty of prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) in accordance with the by the legislature to the delegate. (Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA)
IRR of BP 232, mandamus is not a proper remedy. (Cario v. Capulong)
The power of subordinate legislation is when the national legislature entrusts to
The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency recognizes the establishment of a administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general
single executive, an that all executive and administrative organizations are provisions of the statute. With this power, administrative bodies may implement
adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive the broad policies laid down in a statute by filling in the details which the Congress
departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. This is effected by their
cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations, which have the
person on the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the force and effect of law. (Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA)
multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are
performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid
Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course delegation of legislative power, viz: the completeness test and the sufficient
of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. Thus, and in short, the Presidents conditions when it leaves the legislative such that when it reaches the delegate the
power of control is directly exercised by him over the members of the Cabinet who, only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. Under the sufficient standard test, there
in turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of
respective jurisdictions in the executive department. Such power includes the the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Both tests
power of to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate,



who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the
essentially legislative. (Tatad v. Secretary of the DOE) administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them
Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the government the power as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.
to fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is (Smart v. NTC)
essential that said law: (a) be complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to
be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fix a standardthe Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when
limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinableto which the delegate they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. Action of an administrative
must conform in the performance of his functions. (Pelaez v. Auditor General) agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error
of law, a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER OR RULE-MAKING POWER clearly conflicting with either the letter or spirit of the law. (Eastern Shipping Lines
v. CA)
In exercising its quasi-judicial function, an administrative body adjudicates the
rights of persons before it, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law. An administrative agency cannot impose a penalty not so provided in the law
The determination of facts and the applicable law, as basis for official action and authorizing the promulgation of the rules and regulations. (Tayug Rural Bank v.
the exercise of judicial discretion, are essential for the performance of this function. Central Bank of the Philippines)
On these considerations, it is elementary that due process requirements, as
enumerated in Ang Tibay, must be observed. These requirements include prior QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
notice and hearing. On the other hand, quasi-legislative power is exercised by
administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules and regulations within Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power of the
the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of certain administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power
powers flowing from the separation of the great branches of the government. Prior to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply
notice to and hearing of every affected party, as elements of due process, are not and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in
required since there is no determination of past events or facts that have to be enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its
established or ascertained. As a general rule, prior notice and hearing are not quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is
essential to the validity of rules or regulations promulgated to govern future essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such
conduct. (Abella, Jr. v. CSC) manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the
executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial
The rules and regulations that administrative agencies promulgate, which are the functions, the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or
product of a delegated legislative power to create new and additional legal ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw
provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in
authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that a judicial nature. Since rights of specific persons are affected it is elementary that
the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and not be in in the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power due process must be observed in the
contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law. They must conduct of the proceedings. (Dole Philippines v. Esteva)
conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order
for such rule or regulation to be valid. Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative Cardinal primary requirements of procedural due process:
or rule-making power of an administrative agency is its quasi-judicial or (1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party
administrative adjudicatory power. This is the power to hear and determine interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence
questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in in support thereof;
accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and
administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but
power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is (3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right,
incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of



having something to support its decision; has been given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.
but the evidence must be substantial; (Delfin v. Inciong)
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND REVIEW
parties affected;
(6) The court or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own The procedure for appeals to the Office of the President is governed by Section 1
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, of Administrative Order No. 18,14 Series of 1987 which provides that unless
and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a otherwise governed by special laws, an appeal to the Office of the President shall
decision. x x x be taken within thirty (30) days from receipt by the aggrieved party of the
(7) The court should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in decision/resolution/order complained of or appealed from. Hence, it follows that a
such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the decision or order issued by a department or agency need not be appealed to the
various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions Office of the President when there is a special law that provides for a different
rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority mode of appeal. (Moran, Jr. v. Office of the President)
conferred upon it. (Cuenca v. Atas)
Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases should be appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of
Technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in quasi-judicial proceedings;
the Rules of Court. Indeed, certiorari lies to assail the Office of the Ombudsmans
only substantial compliance is required. (Scenarios v. Vinluan)
decision when there is allegation of grave abuse of discretion. (Office of the
Ombudsman v. Delos Reyes, Jr.)
In quasi-judicial proceedings, procedural rules governing service of summons are
not strictly construed. Substantial compliance thereof is sufficient. Also, in labor
Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, and not to correct errors of
cases, punctilious adherence to stringent technical rules may be relaxed in the
judgment. An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the
interest of the working man; it should not defeat the complete and equitable
exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal. Error of
resolution of the rights and obligations of the parties. This Court is ever mindful of
jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or
the underlying spirit and intention of the Labor Code to ascertain the facts of each
in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ
case speedily and objectively without regard to technical rules of law and
of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court or quasi-
procedure, all in the interest of due process. (Pison-Arceo Agricultural and
judicial body in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions
Development v. NLRC)
anchored on the said findings, and its conclusions of law. As long as the court acts
within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion
The constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination extends to administrative will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal
proceedings which possess a criminal or penal aspect. The right against self- or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. (Suyat, Jr. v. Torres)
incrimination extends not only to the right to refuse to answer questions put to the
accused while on the witness stand, but also to forego testimony, to remain silent
Certiorari is not a substitute for appeal. Before seeking judicial redress, a party
and refuse to take the witness stand when called as a witness by the prosecution.
must first exhaust the administrative remedies available. In this case, petitioner-
(Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners)
appellant did not appeal the order of the respondent Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources to the President of the Philippines, who issued Executive
The doctrine of res judicata applies to adversary administrative proceedings. Proclamation No. 238 withdrawing the area from private exploitation, and
Specifically, to judicial or quasi judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of establishing it as the Olongapo Watershed Forest Reserve. Considering that the
administrative powers. (United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union v. Laguesma) President has the power to review on appeal the orders or acts of the respondents-
appellees, the failure of the petitioner-appellant to take that appeal is failure on his
The doctrine of res judicata is that parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the part to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Tan v. Director of Forestry)
same issue more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such a trial In an administrative case, appeal to the President of the Philippines is the last step



that the aggrieved party should take. The withdrawal of the appeal taken to the Modes of judicial review vary according to the statutes; appeal, petition for review
President is tantamount to not appealing at all thereto. Such withdrawal is fatal. or a writ of certiorari. No general rule applies to all the various administrative
(Calo v. Fuertes) agencies. Where the law stands mute, the accepted view is that the extraordinary
remedies in the Rules of Court are still available, such as certiorari, prohibition
DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION and/or mandamus. A review thereof cannot be done through an ordinary civil
action. (Macailing v. Andrada)
When the Office of the President issued the Order declaring the Decision of March
29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed a motion for Evidence to support a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary, and the
reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, dismissal of the criminal case against the respondent in an administrative case is
more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President not a ground for the dismissal of the administrative case. We emphasize the well-
has no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by settled rule that a criminal case is different from an administrative case and each
respondent DAR Secretary. the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the must be disposed of according to the facts and the law applicable to each case. In
case and substantially modifying its March 29, 1996 Decision which had already administrative cases, the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence
become final and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Office of the Court Administrator v.
precept that accord finality to administrative determinations. (Fortich v. Corona) Lopez)

Factual issues are not proper subjects of an original petition for certiorari before DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
the Supreme Court, as its power to review is limited to questions of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals or officials. Judicial General Rule: The non-exhaustion of administrative remedies warrants the
review does not extend to an evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon dismissal of the petition.
which the proper labor officer or office based his or its determination. (SSSEA v. Exceptions:
Bathan-Velasco) (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to
JUDICIAL REVIEW lack of jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
The Constitution impresses upon the Court to respect the acts performed by a co- irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
equal branch done within its sphere of competence and authority, but at the same (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule
time, allows it to cross the line of separation but only at a very limited and specific impractical and oppressive;
point to determine whether the acts of the executive and the legislative branches (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be
are null because they were undertaken with grave abuse of discretion. (Imbiong decided by the courts of justice;
v. Ochoa) (f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) where the application of the doctrines may cause great and irreparable
It is well-settled that the Courts exercise of the power of judicial review requires damage;
the concurrence of the following elements: (h) where the controversial acts violate due process;
(1) There must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been
judicial power; rendered moot;
(2) The person challenging the act must have the standing to question the (j) where strong public interest is involved; and
validity of the act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal (k) in quo warranto proceedings.
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; The rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the principle
(3) The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the
opportunity; matter again, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical
(4) The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. reasons for the rule. The administrative process is intended to provide less
(Villafuerte, Jr. v. Robredo) expensive and speedier solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates



a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
appeal or reconsideration, therefore, the courts for reasons of law, comity and
convenience will not entertain a case unless the available administrative It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case,
remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the
an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum. case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and
(Ejero v. Merto) knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or
intricate questions of fact are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an
The general rule is that there be no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even
the ordinary course of law when filing a petition for mandamus. Moreover, the rule though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. This is the doctrine of
on exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that a party exhaust all primary jurisdiction. (Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA)
administrative remedies to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide
the matter and to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts. (Buena Respondent DARs failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioners
v. Benito) landholdings does not ipso facto give this Court the power to adjudicate over
petitioners application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-
The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the courts agricultural. The agency charged with the mandate of approving or disapproving
must allow the administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge applications for conversion is the DAR. (Roxas and Company v. CA)
their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. It
is presumed that an administrative agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass upon When the issues presented do not require the expertise, specialized skills and
a matter, will decide the same correctly, or correct any previous error committed in knowledge of respondent for their resolution, or when the issues are purely legal
its forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity and convenience prevent the courts questions which are within the competence and jurisdiction of the Court, and not
from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies. an administrative agency or the Senate to resolve, then the doctrine of primary
Hence, premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of jurisdiction does not apply. (Pimentel v. Senate)
action of the petitioner. (Gonzales v. CA)
Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
The question of seizure and forfeiture is for the administrative authorities to Administrative Remedies
determine, the Collector of Customs in the first instance and then the Failure to exhaust all administrative Failure to exhaust administrative
Commissioner of Customs. This is a field where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction remedies warrants the dismissal of the remedies does not warrant the
controls. Thereafter an appeal may be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals. A court case as the same is fatal to judicial dismissal of the case as the same can
of first instance is thus devoid of competence to act on the matter. (Commissioner review. be referred to administrative agencies.
of Customs v. Navarro)
Primary jurisdiction is vested with an The courts have jurisdiction over a
As a rule, where the law provides for the remedies against the action of an administrative agency. case, but merely refers the same to an
administrative board, body, or officer, relief to courts can be sought only after administrative agency.
exhausting all remedies provided. The rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies, however, is not absolute but admits of exceptions. (Bordallo v. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
Professional Regulations Commission)
Recourse to the CA via a Rule 43 petition is the proper mode of appeal. Rule 43
As to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the rule is well-settled that this governs appeals to the CA from decisions or final orders of quasi-judicial
requirement does not apply where the respondent is a department secretary agencies. (Gupilan-Aguilar v. Office of the Ombudsman)
whose acts, as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied approval of the latter,
unless actually disapproved by him. This doctrine of qualified political agency THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC OFFICE
ensures speedy access to the courts when most needed. There was no need then
to appeal the decision to the office of the President; recourse to the courts could Abolition and removal are mutually exclusive concepts. From a legal standpoint,
be had immediately. (Kilusang Bayan v. Dominguez) there is no occupant in an abolished office. Where there is no occupant, there is



no tenure to speak of. Thus, impairment of the constitutional guarantee of security

of tenure does not arise in the abolition of an office. Furthermore, public office is
not property but a public trust or agency. While their right to due process may be
relied upon by public officials to protect their security of tenure which, in a limited
sense, is analogous to property, such fundamental right to security of tenure
cannot be invoked against a valid abolition of office effected by the legislature itself.
(CAAP-EU formerly ATEU v. CAAP)

The most important characteristic which distinguishes an office from an

employment or contract is that the creation and conferring of an office involves a
delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government, to
be exercised by him for the benefit of the public; that some portion of the
sovereignty of the country, either legislative, executive or judicial, attaches, for the
time being, to be exercised for the public benefit. Unless the powers conferred are
of this nature, the individual is not a public officer. (Laurel v. Desierto)

The power of control as the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set
aside what a subordinate has done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former to that of the latter. The power of supervision,
on the other hand, means overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to
see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill
them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them
perform their duties. (Veterans Federation of the PH v. Reyes)


Public office is a public trust. It is personal to the incumbent thereof or appointee

thereto. In this sense, it is not property which passes to his heirs. None of the heirs
may replace him in that position, and they cannot substitute the deceased in
proceedings. In this case, however, since the court already acquired jurisdiction
even before the passing of the decedent, the Court shall allow the substitution.
(Santos v. Secretary of Labor)

Public office is personal to the incumbent and is not a property which passes to
his heirs, hence, the heirs in this case may no longer prosecute the deceased
protestees counter-claim for damages against the protestant for that was
extinguished when death terminated his right to occupy the contested office. This
is in accordance with the Latin expression actio personalis moritur cum persona
which means that the personal action dies with the person. (Abeja v. Taada)

There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office, or even an

absolute right to hold it. Except constitutional offices which provide for special
immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested
right in an office or its salary. (National LTD Registration Administration v. CSC)