Administrative Law Reviewer ~*.*Cha Mendoza*.

*~
I. HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Development of Administrative Law as a distinct *MERALCO V PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO.
field of public law FACTS: Meralco wanted SC to serve as arbitrators to
1. Factors responsible for the emergence of determine the amount of toll that they would collect
administrative agencies HELD: SC should strictly confine its own sphere of influence
to the powers EXPRESSLY or IMPLIEDLY conferred on it by the
Pangasinan Transportation v Public Service Commission (J. CONSTITUTION.
Laurel) -The SC and its members should not nor cannot be required to
1. growing complexities of modern life exercise any power or to perform any task, or to assume any
2. multiplication of number of subjects needing duty not pertaining to or connected with administering judicial
government regulation functions.
3. increased difficulty in administering law -A board of arbitrators is not a court – it possesses none of the
jurisdiction granted by the Consti to SC
(Stone):the 3 branches of government lack: *powers of SC should only be confined to what is in the CONSTITUTION
1. time
2. expertise NOBLEJAS v TEEHANKEE
3. organizational aptitude for effective and continuing FACTS: Noblejas, Land Registration Commissioner, was
regulations of new developments in society charged with improperly approving subdivision plans. Since
…so administrative agencies were created, out of Land Registration Commissioners enjoy the SAME
necessity, to serve as a catch basin for the 3 branches COMPENSATION as that of CFI Judges, Noblejas contends that
he should be investigated and dismissed like CFI judges.
2. The doctrine of separation of powers and the HELD: Land Registration Commissioner DOES NOT HAVE THE
constitutional position of administrative agencies SAME RANK as CFI Judges
Doctrine of separation of powers: 1. it would mean placing upon the SC the duty of
-checks and balances investigating and disciplining all these officials whose
-sovereign powers vested in 3 branches of government functions are purely executive and EXPRESSLY
-basic powers of government should be kept separate from placed under the President’s control and supervision
each other 2. if ever there is such a grant, it would be
-dispersing the centers of authority to prevent ABSOLUTISM unconstitutional since it would be violative of the
Re: administrative agencies: administrative agencies doctrine of separation of powers and would diminish
perform quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial functions though it is the control of the PRESIDENT over executive officials
*It doesn’t mean that when an executive officer has the same compensation and
under the executive branch, therefore, it seems that it privileges as a judiciary officer that they have the same rank and should be under
violates the doctrine of separation of powers. However, the same branch of government
according to Stone, since the 3 branches lack time, expertise
and organizational aptitude for effective and continuing GARCIA v MACARAIG
regulation of new developments in society, the separation of FACTS: There was a DISCIPLINARY ACTION vs a CFI Judge
powers should not be strictly construed for the system not to with the DOJ for allegedly receiving his salary even if he has
collapse – the administrative agencies would serve as a catch not assumed his duties yet. BEFORE, CFI Judges were under
basin for the 3 branches. the supervision of the DOJ. The said judge was not able to
assume his office because he DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE YET!
B. Definitions of Terms (DAVIS definition) HELD: Administrative complaint should be dismissed
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW -NO judge should place himself in a position where his
Branch of public law actuations would be subject to review and prior approval and,
Dealing with the doctrines and principles governing worse still, review, before they can have any legal effect, by
POWERS and PROCEDURES of ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES any authority other than the CA or the SC
ESPECIALLY including JUDICIAL REVIEW of Administrative *a co-equal branch cannot exercise authority over a co-equal branch
action
*IN RE: RODOLFO MANZANO
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
FACTS: Judge Manzano requested SC to approve his
Any governmental ORGAN or AUTHORITY
appointment as a member of the Provincial Committee on
Other than the court or legislative body
Justice, which exercises administrative functions
Which affects the RIGHTS of PRIVATE PARTIES
HELD: Request denied
Through RULE-MAKING and ADJUDICATION
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS:
involve the REGULATION and CONTROL over the conduct and
*PANGASINAN TRANSPORT INC v PUBLIC SERVICE affairs of individuals for their own welfare
COMMISSION and the PROMULGATION of rules and regulations to better
FACTS: PTI was applying for an authorization to operate carry out the policy or such as are designated to any agency
additional busses, which was granted by the PBC subject to 2 by the organic law of its existence
conditions (that the certificate would only be valid for 25 *definition of ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
years and that the government could acquire the said buses
after just compensation) in accordance with CA 146. PTI PUYAT v DE GUZMAN
wanted CA 146 to be declared void. FACTS: Assemblyman served initially as counsel but when
HELD: not allowed, bought shares in the company and participated
-CA 146 is constitutional. as shareholder in the proceedings before the SEC
-The PSC could issue the said orders as a valid delegation of HELD: Indirect appearance as counsel by an assemblyman
legislative powers (consider the FACTORS mentioned before an administrative body circumvents the constitutional
above↑); it was a valid SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION – rules prohibition.
promulgated must be GERMANE and CONSISTENT with the
law it seeks to implement II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
-the said orders were in accordance with public interest, made A. Administrative agencies and the executive power of
under police powers of the state the President
-case remanded for due process violations [ARTVII.1, CONSTI] Executive power vested in the President
*importance: on factors which contributed to the rise of administrative agencies

.1.
Administrative Law Reviewer
[ARTVII.17, CONSTI] President has control over EXEC
departments, bureaus and offices.
B. Congressional Oversight Power
*MACALINTAL v COMELEC
FACTS: Congress created through RA 9198 a Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee to review, revise, amend
and approve the IRR of COMELEC for the Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2003. It was assailed to be unconstitutional as it
encroaches the “independence” granted by the Constitution
to COMELEC.
HELD: Some of the provisions of RA 9198 were stricken out
for being unconstitutional as it confers powers to the
legislative which are not provided for under the Constitution
**********PUNO’s opinion**********
Separation of Powers
-prevents the concentration of legislative, executive and
judiciary powers to a single branch of government by deftly
allocating their exercises to 3 branches of government
-Although not “hermetically sealed” from one another, the
powers of the 3 branches are identifiable: legislative power =
enactment of the law; executive power = execution of the
law; judicial power = interpretation of the law.
-one branch cannot exercise or share the power of the other
-under separation of powers: checks and balances: under
checks and balances, the congressional oversight
Congressional Oversight
-all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its
understanding of and influence over the implementation of
legislation it has enacted
-intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to
the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of
government
Categories:
1. scrutiny [Article VI, Sections 18 and 22]
…determine the economy and efficiency of the operation of
government activities
…based primarily on the power of appropriation of
Congress wherein the Congress conduct hearings for
administrative officers to justify their budget proposals; and
subsequently under [ArtVI.22], to invite department heads
on any matter pertaining to their departments;
…could also be based on the power of confirmation of the
Congress under [ArtVI.18], wherein Congress shares
appointing power of the executive to lessen political
considerations and an opportunity for Congress to find out
whether the nominee possesses the necessary qualifications
required.
2. investigation [Article VI, Section 21]
…limitations: (a) in aid of legislation; (b) in accordance with
duly published rules of procedure; (c) rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected
…essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
function, which also includes the power to hold a person in
contempt [Arnault v Nazareno].
…but the matters which should be addressed in the
investigations MUST BE IN AID OF LEGISLATION [Bengzon v
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee]
3. supervision
-generally, the congress retains a “right” to approve or
disapprove any regulation before it takes effect if the rule-
making power of the administrative agency is made to
depend on a statute.
-however, this case is an exception since the rule-making
power of COMELEC was conferred not by a legislation but by
the CONSTITUTION.
C. Legislative and Judicial Control of Administrative
Decision-making. Dean Carlota
-administrative agencies affect private rights and public
interest. It was first objected to due to the doctrine of
separation of powers BUT with the Pangasinan case, J. Laurel
.2.
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
enunciated the factors that made administrative agencies
necessary
Legislative Control:
1. Creation and abolition
2. Appropriation
3. Investigation
Non-delegation Doctrine and Legislative Standards
GR: under the non-delegation doctrine, legislative powers
conferred by the Constitution to the Legislature cannot be
conferred to other branches of government.
EXCEPTION:
1. the law is complete in itself, has a policy
2. the law comes with standards
…however, even if the delegation is broad, judiciary is often
hesitant to strike it down. Therefore, the focus of their judicial
review is WON the administrative standards emanate from the
law which created the agency itself
Judicial Review
-judicial review allowed on questions of law; if it involves
questions of fact and policy, JR only allowed when there is (1)
lack of jurisdiction; (2) GAD; (3) error of law; (4) fraud or
collusion
-on ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: JR not resorted because of
their expertise
EXCEPTIONS: re: questions of fact: JR resorted to when no
substantial evidence
Re: questions of policy: when question of policy are intimately
connected with questions of law
D. The Ombudsman: Its effectivity and visibility amidst
bureacratic abuse and irregularity. Dean Carlota
Ombudsman’s essential characteristics
1. Political independence
2. Accessibility and expedition: has deputies all over
the country and may establish offices outside Metro
manila whenever necessary.
3. Investigatory powers: can investigate UPON
COMPLAINT or on OWN INITIATIVE
4. absence of revisory jurisdiction: cannot modify or
overturn decisions of administrative agencies in the
performance of its rulemaking and adjudicative
functions
*CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF MWSS v VASQUEZ
FACTS: There was a public bidding which was contested by
the losing bidder to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman set aside the MWSS decision to award the
project to the winning bidder
HELD: Ombudsman may not veto or revise an exercise of
judgment or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom
that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested especially when
the matter involves basically technical matters coming under
the special technical knowledge and training of the agency or
officer.
-in this case the losing bidder was suggesting the use of
fiberglass pipes instead of steel pipes. The Ombudsman had
no authority to interfere with the judgment of MWSS of what
kind of pipes to use!
*Ombudsman has no revisory power
*LASTIMOSA V VASQUEZ
FACTS: Provincial prosecutor filed only “acts of
lasciviousness” instead of “attempted rape” which was
ordered by the Office of the Ombudsman, and thus was
placed under preventive suspension
HELD: The ombudsman has the power to review, revise,
direct, reverse or modify a decision of a prosecutor deputized
or designated to be under the his control and supervision, and
thus, can also punish and discipline them.
-The Ombudsman has the power to INVESTIGATE AND
PROSECUTE on its own or on complaint by any person
(1) Any act or omission by any PUBLIC OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE, OFFICE or AGENCY
Administrative Law Reviewer
(2) When such act or omission appears to be ILLEGAL,
UNJUST, IMPROPER or INEFFICIENT (IUII)
-includes ANY CRIME COMMITTED by a public official
regardless of WON acts are related to, connected with, or
arise from the performance of his official duty
*Although the ruling of this case involves the power of Ombudsman over its
deputies, the case also highlighted that it has jurisdiction over ALL KINDS OF
CASES INVOLVING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL regardless if it’s connected with his official
duty
*BIR v OFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
FACTS: Upon information of an informant that BIR was
granting anomalous grant of tax refunds, the Ombudsman
directed BIR’s legal department to appear before him and to
bring the case dokets of the two companies involved. BIR
protested, arguing that there was already a previous case
which upheld the validity of the tax refunds and that THERE
MUS BE A PENDING ACTION BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A
SUBPOENA
HELD: the pendency of an action is not a prerequisite for the
Ombudsman to start its own investigation. It can do so even
on a verbal, unsigned or unverified complaint
*Ombudsman can motu propio investigate
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V ENOC
FACTS: Ombudsman filed information against employees of
the OSCC who were accused with malversation through
falsification. These employees had a salary grade below
SG27. Respondents moved to quash information on the
ground that regular courts had jurisdiction over the case
(therefore provincial prosecutor should file case, not
ombudsman)
HELD: Ombudsman has plenary and unqualified powers to
prosecute NOT ONLY GRAFT CASES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN but also those COGNIZABLE BY THE
REGULAR COURTS as long as (1) these acts were done by
public officer or employee and (2) these acts appear to be IUII.
*Ombudsman can prosecute cases even if not under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan
*FUENTES V OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
FACTS: There was an expropriation case wherein the scrap
iron in the said expropriated area was sold in a public auction
and to be able to withdraw said scrap iron, the winning bidder
applied for a writ of execution before the petitioner judge. The
writ of execution was granted but was subsequently
cancelled. Administrative charges were filed against the
officers involved in the granting and implementing of the writ
of execution, including the judge who issued the said writ.
Ombudsman was to investigate the acts of said judge.
HELD: Ombudsman may not initiate a criminal or
administrative complaint before his office against a judge,
pursuant to his power to investigate public officers.
Ombudsman must indorse the case to the SC for appropriate
action. [Art VIII.6, CONSTI] exclusively vests in SC
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel
*Ombudsman cannot investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a court
officer or personnel
LEDESMA V CA
FACTS: Ledesma, as chair of BSI of BID filed a complaint
(criminal and administrative) against 2 of its employees for
allegedly granting extension of Temporary Resident Visas.
Ombudsman conducted an investigation and subsequently
held that the grant of TRVs were regular. Ledesma appealed
the “recommendation” of the Ombudsman to CA, CA denied
MFR.
HELD: Under [ArtXI.13(3), CONSTI] a recommendation” that
emanates from the Ombudsman after it has conducted its
investigation is NOT MERELY ADVISORY BUT BINDING AND
MANDATORY.
-On RA 6770 vs CONSTI: RA 6770 grants the ombudsman the
power to remove, suspend, demote…erring officials when the
CONSTI merely provided that Ombudsman can only
“recommend” the removal of the said official. SC held that the
.3.
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
word “recommend” should be interpreted with the phrase
“and ensure compliance therewith”.
*Ombudsman can direct and compel the head of the agency or office to implement
the penalty imposed. Not merely advisory but Mandatory
*ESTARIJA v RANADA
FACTS:Estarija was found guilty by the Ombudsman of
dishonesty and grave misconduct for demanding monies for
the approval and issuance of berthing permits and monthly
contributions, and was dismissed from service. He questioned
the constitutionality of RA 6770 as granting powers to the
Ombudsman which were not provided for by the COnsti
HELD: Upheld the validity of RA 6770 based on the ff:
1. Jurisprudence: [LEDESMA V CA]
2. intent fo framers of the consti: powers of
Ombudsman not exclusive
3. consti: The consti allows legislature to enact a law
that would spell out the powers of the Ombudsman.
III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES
A. Legislative function
1. nondelegation doctrine: potestas delegate non delegare
potest
COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACCO V BOARD OF PUBLIC
UTILITY COMMISSION
FACTS: Act No. 2307 conferred the Board with authority to
require every public utility reports containing such matters
“as the Board may from time to time by order prescribe”. In
pursuance to the said law, the Board required Compania to
present a detailed report of its finances and operations of its
vessels. Compania contested the validity of Act 2307 for
being an unlawful attempt to delegate legislative power to the
Board.
HELD: Act was unconstitutional. Unlawful delegation of
legislative power.
-The law should provide the general rules of action under
which the Board was to proceed.
-legislative power, which involves discretion and judgment,
should be exercised by the body entrusted with the duty and
cannot delegate it.
-the law must be complete, in all its terms and provisions,
when it leaves the legislature, so that, in form and substance
it is a law in all its details, in presenti, but which may be left to
take effect in futuro.
*For nondelegation: the law should provide general rules of action, must be
complete
*US v ANG TANG HO
FACTS: Act 2868 authorized the Governor General to fix
quantities of agricultural products that a company or
merchant may acquire, and the maximum sale price that the
company or merchant may demand for any cause. Ang Tang
Ho was prosecuted for allegedly imposing excessive price. He
questioned constitutionality of said Act for authorizing GG to
fix price.
HELD: Unconstitutional.
1. Legislature left GG to determine when a crime is
committed
2. Legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law
but it can make a law to delegate a power to
determine some fact or state of things upon which
the law makes or intends to make its own action to
depend
*When a legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, it is undue
delegation
*PEOPLE V VERA
FACTS: Cu Unjieng convicted for a crime, applied for
probation. Act providing for probation assailed to be
unconstitutional for leaving each provincial board the
discretion on WON to apply it.
HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Administrative Law Reviewer
TEST for determining WON there was UNDUE DELEGATION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER: WON the law does not lay down any rule
by which the administrative office or board my be guided in
the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it.
*Test to determine undue delegation
*PELAEZ V AUITOR GENERAL
FACTS: VP Pelaez assailed the constitutionality of EOs issued
by the President creating 33 municipalities for being an undue
delegation of legislative power, and since the Administrative
Code which the President used to create the municipalities
was repealed by a law which prohibited him from even
creating barrios.
HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
-Creation of municipalities not an administrative function but
one which is legislative in character.
-COMPLETENESS TEST: (1) law must be complete in itself,
setting forth the policy to be executed, carried out or
implemented by the delegate
(2) it must fix a standard – the limits are sufficiently
determinate or determinable to which the delegate must
conform in the performance of his functions.
*Requisites for nondelegation
*EDU V ERICTA
FACTS: Galo assailed validity of the Reflector Law
HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL
-The standard defines the legislative policy, marks its limits,
maps out the boundaries and specifies the public agency to
apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the
legislative command is to be effected.
-The standard may be express or implied. Standard here is
public safety.
*Standards may be IMPLIED
AGUSTIN v EDU
FACTS: This time the Reflector law was implemented through
the Letters of Instruction which required all owners and
drivers to obtain a pair of reflectorized triangular early
warning device.
HELD: Letters of Instruction CONSTITUTIONAL
-the legislature must determine matters of principle, lay down
fundamental policy, and indicate the circumstances under
which the legislative command is to be effected.
*Also, standards may be IMPLIED (Public safety)
FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION V MINISTER OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT
FACTS: Union assails the constitutionality of the amendment
to the Labor Code which allows the Minister of Labor to certify
cases as “adversely affecting the national interest” for
compulsory arbitration.
HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL
-To determine WON there is undue delegation of legislative
power, inquire on the scope of definiteness of the measure
enacted.
ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION:
All that is required is that:
1. the regulation should be germane to the objects and
the purposes of the law
2. the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but
conform to the standards of the law
-case was not yet ripe for adjudication
*PHILCOMSAT V ALCUAZ
FACTS: Philcomsat has long been the provider of satellite
circuits in the Philippines. Then, NTC acquired jurisdiction over
Philcomsat and required the latter to reduce the rates it has
been imposing. Philcomsat now assails the said orders for not
fixing standards.
HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL
-delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon
the ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and
.4.
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
that the legislature in making the delegation has prescribed
the manner of the exercise of the legislative power.
-in delegation of rate-fixing power, only standard legislature is
required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative
authority is that the rate be reasonable and just.
*difference between a legislative act and a quasi-legislative act in rate-fixing
Legislative: concerns all companies
QJ: concerns a specific entity
*STANDARD FOR RATE-FIXING POWER
*CHIONGBIAN V ORBOS
FACTS: President Aquino merged provinces to form ARMM,
pursuant to RA 6734 and the Constitution, through and EO.
EO was assailed as unconstitutional.
HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL.
-MERGING of provinces into regions is similar to the power to
adjust municipal boundaries which is “administrative in
nature”. NOT CREATING MUNICIPALITIES WHICH IS PURELY
LEGISLATIVE.
-standard may be embodied in other statues on the same
matter and not necessarily in the same law being challenged.
*standard may be found in other germane statutes; merging provinces
administrative, not legislative
SANTIAGO v COMELEC
FACTS: PIRMA launched a peoples’ initiative to remove the
term limits on elective posts. COMELEC issued a resolution
adopted to govern the conduct of people’s initiative to fill out
gaps of the enabling law RA 6735. This resolution was
assailed.
HELD: NOT VALID EXERCISE OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
-no standard, not complete
*The ruling here is questioned because the SC did not explain why the “standards”
of the RA 6735 were incomplete, inadequate. The Resolution of COMELEC
specifically was intended to make the said insufficiencies of the said law!
*PANAMA v RYAN
FACTS: An act empowered the President to prohibit the
transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of “hot oil”.
Panama assailed said law.
HELD: Law unconstitutional. No standard, no policy.
The legislature, to prevent its being a pure delegation of
legislative power, must enjoin upon the agent a certain course
of procedure and certain rules of decision in the performance
of its function.
-delegation of power to make law is unconstitutional; power to
confer authority or discretion as to its execution is allowed.
-discretion is not unconfined and vagrant. It is canalized within
the banks that keep it from overflowing [J. Cardozo,
dissenting, thinks that if viewed as a whole, the said law is
provided with a standard]
ALA SCHECTER POULTRY CORP V US
FACTS: President conferred the power to approve or
disapprove codes of Fair Competition applied by a trade or
industrial group assailed.
HELD: (vs. PANAMA v RYAN) when no statutory standards or
procedural safeguards for promulgating the codes are
provided, then it is undue delegation of legislative power.
*”delegation run riot”
FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION v AL GONQUIN SNG, INC.
FACTS: Trade Expansion Act authorizes the President to take
action upon the finding of the Sec. of Treasury that an article
is being imported in such quantities or under such
circumstances as to “threaten to impair the national security”.
President did just that. Companies assail constitutionality of
said Act.
HELD: Act CONSTITUTIONAL. It provided standards for the
president to follow
*Just an example…
WHITE v ROUGHTON
FACTS: standards for granting welfare assistance determined
by the general township assistance program. The people who
Administrative Law Reviewer
filed case vs. Roughton complains that they were deprived of
the benefits without notice or explanation for the decisions.
HELD: Notice and hearing first before
-establish written standards and regulations
*sir said this case was unique because it said that if there are
no standards, agency itself should provide standards
2. Permissible Delegation
a. Ascertainment of Fact
PANAMA v RYAN, supra
Congress can leave selected instrumentalities the making of
subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the
determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the
Legislature is to apply.
LOVINA v MORENO
FACTS: Statute provided the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications the authority to determine WON a stream is
public and WON dams encroach upon such waters…
HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL
-when an officer is REQUIRED by law to inquire into the
existence of certain facts, and to APPLY THE LAW – no
delegation of judicial power
*ABAKADA GURO V ERMITA
FACTS: ABAKADA et.al assails the constitutionality of VAT
Reform Act. ON NONDELEGATION ISSUE, they assail the
sections which provides the Sec. of Finance the power to
ascertain WON the VAT collection as a percentage of the GDP
exceeded a certain percentage…
HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL
-delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which the
enforcement and administration of the increased rate would
depend is not a delegation of legislative power but simply a
delegation of ascertainment of facts.
-Sec of Finance is acting as the agent of the legislative
department, to determine and declare the event upon which
its expressed will is to take effect.
*delegation of power to ascertain facts allowed
b. filling in of details
ALEGRE V COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
FACTS: Allegre who was an exporter of abaca, applied for
permit to export abaca, but was denied unless he obtained a
certification from the Fiber Standardization Board.
HELD: NO delegation. Just carried out purpose and intent of
the law, which is administrative
*a statute which leaves to the Executive the power to fill in
the technical details in view of the latter’s expertise is a
recognized delegation of legislative power.
C. Administrative Rule-making
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, BOOK VII
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC1. SCOPE. All agencies
Except:
-Congress
-Judiciary
-Constitutional Commissions
-military establishments in matters relating exclusively to AF
personnel
-Board of Pardons and Parole
-state universities and colleges
Sec2. definitions
CHAPTER 2. RULES AND REGULATIONS
SEC3. FILING
(1) File with the UP Law Center 3 certified
copies
.5.
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
(2) Records officer shall carry out the
requirements under pain of disciplinary action
(3) Permanent register of all rules shall be kept
by the issuing agency
SEC4. EFFECTIVITY
Each rule shall be effective 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF FILING AS
ABOVE PROVIDED UNLESS A DIFFERENT DATE IS FIXED BY
LAW.
SEC5. PUBLICATION AND RECORDING
UP Law Center shall publish bulletin
SEC 6. OMISSION OF SOME RULES. Could omit rules which are
cumbersome, expensive or inexpedient to publish
-if penal rule, should be published in FULL TEXT
SEC7. DISTRIBUTION OF BULLETIN AND CODIFIED RULES.
SEC 8. JUDICIAL NOTICE. Court shall take judicial notice of
certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the
bulletin
SEC9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
(1) agency publish or circulate notices of proposed rules
+ opportunity for interested parties to submit their
views (UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW)
(2) FIXING RATES: proposed rates shall have been
published in a newspaper of general circulation at
least 2 weeks before first hearing – or else proposed
rates INVALID (so publication + hearing)
1. Limits on Rule-Making Power
OLSEN INC V ALDANESE
FACTS: In implementing an act improving method of
production and quality of tobacco, CIR issued AO 35 which
limited the exportation into the US of Philippine cigars to
those manufactured from long filler tobacco exclusively the
product of provinces Cagayan, Isabela or Nueva Viscaya.
HELD: CIR exceeded its rule-making power
*The authority of CIR to make any rules and regulation should be founded upon
some legislative act (LAW), and that they must follow and be within the scope and
purview of the act.
SYMAN V JACINTO
FACTS: Collector seized the goods consigned to Syman, but
subsequently it was held that the said goods be released.
Syman did not appeal from the said decision, and was asking
for the execution of the said judgment. However, the said
decision was endorsed to the Commissioner of Customs in
accordance with a Memo issued by the Commissioner
providing that the Commissioner can review the decisions of
the Collector, regardless if appealed or not.
HELD: Memo void
(1) not approved by the Department Head
(2) not published
(3) inconsistent with law, Revised Admin Code
specifically provides that an appeal should first be
made before Commissioner may review case
*the rule should not be inconsistent with the law (Revised Admin Code)
PEOPLE V MACEREN
FACTS: Accused convicted of violation of Fisheries Admin
Order prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine Waters. But
enabling law which was promulgated did not prohibit electro
fishing
HELD: The rule-making power must be confined to details for
regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law
as it has been enacted. The power cannot be extended to
amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to
embrace matters not covered by the statute.
*cannot make penal rule if enabling law does not allow for one.
TOLEDO V CSC
FACTS: Toledo was appointed as Manager of Education and
Information Department of the COMELEC even though he was
57 years old, in violation of the Civil Service Rules on
Administrative Law Reviewer
Personnel Action and policies. His appointment was
subsequently declared voidable.
HELD: The said prohibition by CSC is INVALID since the law
which established CSC and authorized it to prescribe and
enforce rules for carrying into effect the provisions of the law
DOES NOT PROHIBIT APPOINTMENT OR REINSTATEMENT IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICE OF ANY PERSON ALREADY 57 YEARS
OLD
* cannot make rule which are not germane to the purpose of the law which it
meant to implement
CIR v CA
FACTS: ROH Autoparts applied for tax amnesty. CIR issued a
Revenue Memo which construed the amnesty coverage to
include only assessments after the issuance of the EO
declaring tax amnesty.
HELD: All rules must not override, but must remain consistent
and in harmony with the law they seek to apply and
implement.
*must not be inconsistent with the enabling law
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V CA
FACTS: In accordance with CARL, land of respondent was
expropriated. However, instead of paying in cash or Land
Bank bonds, DAR issued Certificates of Deposit.
HELD: The function of promulgating rules and regulations may
be legitimately exercised only for the purpose to carrying the
provisions of law into effect. The power of administrative
agencies is thus confined to implementing law or putting it
into effect. Corollary to this is that administrative regulations
cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment
*must be consistent with the enabling law
GMRC v BELL TELECOM PHIL
FACTS: Belltel filed application with NTC. 2 deputy
commissioners already approved of the application but
Commissioner Kintanar didn’t. Memo Circular in NTC lodged in
the Chairman the exclusive authority to sign, validate,
promulgate any and all orders, resolutions and decisions of
NTC, while the enabling law EO146 organized NTC as a
collegial body.
HELD: said Memo Circular is void.
-Administrative regulations derive their validity from the
statute that they were intended to implement.
ASSOCIATION OF PHIL. COCONUT DESICCATORS V PHIL.
COCONUT AUTHORITY
FACTS: PCA issued Resolution which withdrew from PCA all
regulation of coconut product processing industry;
registration would be limited to the monitoring of their
volumes of production and admin of quality standards.
HELD: said renunciation of power through a resolution VOID
-Rule cannot abdicate the powers set up by the enabling law
OPLE V TORRES
FACTS: AO adopting a National ID System sought to be
invalidated.
HELD: The President may not unilaterally impose a new
legislative policy requiring the adjustment of various other
contending policies
*power to promulgate rules should be made pursuant to the consti
PBC v CIR
FACTS: BIR amended the NIRC by providing a longer
prescriptive period for filing Tax Refunds
HELD: CIR Cannot provide for a longer prescriptive period,
going beyond the NIRC
*should be consistent with the enabling law
CHINA BANK V MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, HOME
DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND
.6.
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
FACTS: HDMF made an amendment to the Mutual fund law,
interpreting the “and/or” by providing just “and” in the
amendment re: provident/retirement plans.
HELD: the basic law should prevail as embodiment of the
legislative purpose; rules cannot go beyond the law’s terms
and provisions
*when there’s conflict, follow the enabling law
MAXIMA REALTY MANAGEMENT V PARKWAY
FACTS: Concerns a sale of a condo unit which was cancelled
because of defaults in payments of installments. The buyer
filed with OAALA of HLURB a complaint for specific
performance to enforce sale but HLURB affirmed nullification
of Deed of sale. Appealed to Board of Commissioners of
HLURB and initially offered to pay the balance which was
accepted by the seller but buyer still was not able to pay so
Board affirmed nullification. Buyer appealed to Office of the
President but filed appeal out of time.
HELD: appeal filed out of time
-Special Law (HLURB ROP and AO 18 provides 30d) vs PD
(provides 15d): PD rules!
-an administrative rule in order to be valid must not contradict
but conform to the provisions of the enabling law.
*Where there is conflict, follow the enabling law
2. Publication and effectivity
PEOPLE V QUE PO LAY
FACTS: Que po lay said to have violated CB Circular No. 20
which requires the sale of foreign exchange to CB within 1
day following the receipt of such foreign exchange, and was
convicted. On appeal, argued that said circular was not
published so not effective
HELD: rule which prescribes a penalty for its violation should
be published before becoming effective on the general
principle and theory that before the public is bound by its
contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation, or
circular must first be published and the people officially and
especially informed of said contents and its penalties.
*publication required for penal rules
PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS V SSS
FACTS: Original R & R provided rebate upon departure from
RP of Alien employees but amendments which were published
NOV 1958 (After employees were separated from
employment) eliminated the rebate except if worked for
2years
HELD: VALID EVEN WITHOUT PUBLICATION
-the R & R itself provides effectivity date on its day of
approval by the President
*interpreted A2, NCC to apply ONLY when the law does not provide an effectivity
date
*TANADA V TUVERA
FACTS: mandamus to compel officials concerned to
publish/cause publication of Marcos’ orders in the OG
HELD: Publication in the OG is a condition sine quo non for the
effectivity of laws, where the law itself does not provide for its
effectivity date.
-publication necessary in cases to ascertain the date of
effectivity.
-EXCEPTIONS TO PUBLICATION:
1.interpretative regulations
2. those merely internal in nature (regulating only personnel
of the administrative agency
3. Letters of instructions concerning rules or guidelines to be
followed by subordinates in the performance of their duties
PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS V TORRES
FACTS: DO and MC suspended the recruitment and
deployment of OFWs to HK but the said orders were not
published and filed with NAR
Administrative Law Reviewer
HELD: Law invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of
proper publication and filing in the office of the NAR as
required by A2, NCC; A5, LC and Admin Code of 1987
DE JESUS V COA
FACTS: Circular implementing RA 6758 discontinued without
qualification all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top
of basic salary (but was not published in OG
HELD: Should be published!
*RP v EXPRESS TELCO
FACTS: Bayantel applied for CPCN to operated CMTS but ist
motion was archived. Upon availability of frequencies,
Bayantel filed motion to revive its case which NTC granted
under 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure, with its 1993
Rules not yet published even if filed with UP LAW CENTER
HELD: Adminsitrative rules and regulations are subject to the
publication and effectivity rules of the RAC in relation to the
Civil Code: Effectivity is 15 days after publication, not 15 days
from date of filing with the UP Law Center.
*effect of national administrative code on effectivity of rules
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FOR
REFORMS (NASECORE) V ERC
FACTS: MERALCO filed an application to increase general
charge BUT its amended application was not published, as
required by IRR of EPIRA so consumer group questioned
validity of granting the said application on procedural
process. MERALCO argues that it used GRAM IR which
exempted the application from publication
HELD: should publish the suggested increase
-GRAM IR was not even published
*regardless, the present Admin Code now requires under Sec9, Book VII that
publication is needed 2 weeks before the scheduled hearing
3. Penal Regulations
PEOPLE V QUE PO LAY, supra
HELD: Rule which prescribes a penalty for its violation should
be published before becoming effective, before the public is
bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law,
regulation, or circular must first be published and the people
officially and specifically informed of said contents and
penalties.
PEOPLE V MACEREN, supra
HELD: administrative rules and regulations cannot amend or
modify or expand the enabling law by including, prohibiting or
punishing certain acts which the law does not even define as
a criminal act.
4. Interpretative Rules
Subordinate legislation: designed to implement a law by
providing it details
-before its adoption there must be hearing under the
Administrative Code [SEC9]
Interpretative rules: how the agency interpret uncertainties
in the law
HILLADO V COLLECTOR
FACTS: Hilado filed income tax return for 1951 claiming
P12873 deduction pursuant to GC v-123 which grants
deductions based on war damage (However, he received
notice in 1950 so if ever, deductions would be made in 1950).
Later, Sec of Finance issued GC V 139 which declared GC
V123 void
HELD: Hilado cannot claim income tax return
1. he received last notice on 1951 so deduct from 1950
2. not a business asset – dependent upon generosity
3. merely interpretative rule cannot change the law
enacted by congress
*Interpretative rules may be found erroneous by the successor of the promulgating
official. A vested right cannot spring from wrong interpretation of law.
.7.
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
*VICTORIAS CO V SSC
FACTS: Victorias assailed Circular 22 which informed ERs that
all bonuses and OT pay as well as cash value of other media
of remuneration would comprise the EEs remuneration or
earnings upon which the SSS contributions would be based.
They argue that this rule should have the approval of the
Prexi and should be published before it becomes effective.
SSC argues that it’s a mere administrative interpretation of
RA 1161 which empowers the SSC to adopt R & R as may be
necessary.
HELD: Circular mere administrative interpretation which does
not need publication
-Old law exempts from coverage of the base pay the bonuses;
AMENDMENT included the bonuses in the base pay. Circ22
merely interpreted the amendment!
*administrative interpretation at best merely advisory; it is the courts that finally
determine what the law means
PERALTA V CSC
FACTS: C5.49 of the Handbook of Information on the
Philippine Civil Service provided deductions from salaries
when absence incurred before or after weekends or holidays.
RA 2625 intended to exclude from computation of leave Sat,
Sun, and holidays because the employee is entitled not to go
to office during those days
HELD: when an administrative agency renders an opinion or
issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-
existing law;
-administrative interpretation of a law is at best advisory, for
it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.
-Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or set
aside by the judicial department if:
(1) there is an error of law
(2) abuse of power
(3) lack of jurisdiction
(4) GAD clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of
the legislative enactment
*when interpretation of admin agencies may be disturbed?
5. Examples of rule-making in various agencies
DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY V MUNOZ
FACTS: Piadeco claims to own some 72k ha. Of land through a
Titulo de Propiedad and acquired a Certificate of Private
Woodland Registration. Subsequently, due to violations, his
certificate was cancelled. AO No. 12-2 also made his
registration of said land prohibited.
HELD: AO 12-2 has the force and effect of law, promulgated
pursuant to the law.
*when Congress authorized the promulgation of
administrative rules and regulations to implement a given
legislation, “all that is required is that :
(1) the regulation should be germane to the objects and
purposes of the law
(2) the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conform
to the standards that the law practices
SAND V ABAD SANTOS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
FACTS: Respondents questioned visitorial powers and power
to deny admission of the Board of Examiners for nurses. TC
ruled for them.
HELD: The Board of Examiners had the power to promulgate
rules in accordance with the Philippine Nursing Act, valid as to
old and new schools, and is a valid exercise of Police power
*AMERICAN TOBACCO V DIRECTOR OF PATENTS
FACTS: Director of patents amended the Revised Rules of
Practice before the Philippine Patent Office, authorizing
himself to designate any ranking official to HEAR inter partes
proceedings, BUT STILL RETAINING power to determine the
merits of the case and the personal and direct preparation of
the case.
HELD: Amendment valid
Administrative Law Reviewer ~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
SUBDELEGATION OF POWER: While the power to decide
resides solely in the administrative agency vested by law, this MIAA V AIRSPAIN
does not preclude a delegation of the power to hold a hearing FACTS: MIAA leases areas in airport, increased rentals and
on the basis of which the decision of administrative agency airport fees
will be made. It is sufficient that the judgment and discretion HELD: rate-fixing exercised by MIAA NULL and VOID
finally exercised are those of the officer authorized by law. -DOTC had the power to increase the said rates, NOT MIAA!
Subdelegation is allowed by sound principles of organization, *agency cannot exercise rate-fixing powers if not authorized to do so!
unless expressly prohibited by law.
e. Licensing Functions
***since the other cases are just examples…saka na lang… Administrative Code, Book VII
[SEC17. LICENSING PROCEDURE]
d. Fixing of Rates, Wages, Prices Grand, renewal, denial, cancellation of license
Administrative Code, Book VII Required to be preceded with NOTICE AND HEARING
[SEC9. Public Participation] Unless:
(2) In fixing rates, not valid unless the proposed rates shall -willful violation of pertinent law, rules and regulations
have been published -When public security, health or safety requires
in a newspaper of general circulation
at least 2 wks before 1st hearing [SEC18. NONEXPIRATION OF LICENSE]
In case of timely and sufficient application for renewal: not
PANAY AUTOBUS V PHIL RAILWAY expired until agency finally determined the application
FACTS: Philippine Railways allowed to increase or decrease (deemed valid until renewal denied)
the rates they were collecting whenever in their judgment
they find it necessary… GONZALO SY TRADING V CBP
FACTS: Gonzalo was granted a permit to export fruits for the
CF: Xmas season of 68 but still used the permit from 69-70. The
KMU V GARCIA fruits he subsequently imported were forfeited and sold in a
FACTS: LTFRB allowed application for fare rate increase even public auction.
without filing a petition for the said purpose HELD: no expiry date does not mean that the license is
perpetual. A license permit is a special privilege, a permission
HELD: Abdication of power of commission to fix rates by re- or authority to do what is within its terms. It is not vested,
delegating their rate-fixing power to those they’re supposed permanent, or absolute, but is ALWAYS REVOCABLE.
to regulate is VOID *no such thing as a permanent license!
*companies should propose rates and the commission would
either approve or disapprove the proposed rates
B. JUDICIAL FUNCTION
*YNCHAUSTI V PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION 3 essential elements of judicial function
1. competent tribunal which has jurisdiction as provided by
FACTS: increase in shipping rates, strike of seamen led to law
increase in wages, led to further increase in rates 2. case or controversy
HELD: increase in rates improper; should be based on: 3. law or rule to be applied to resolve a case
1. original cost
2. cost of reproduction So what’s the difference between what Administrative bodies
3. outstanding capitalization are doing vs Judicial bodies
4. present market value -admin bodies are NOT REGULAR COURTS OF JUSTICE (Not
compared with just compensation in appropriation cases: take part of the judiciary)
into account fair market value @ time of taking -Admin bodies NOT BOUND BY TECHNICAL RULES AND
IN CASE OF VESSELS: public transportation PROCEDURES
-taking done only once, but gradually, so rates should not be …they were created with dispatch, flexibility, speed so they
based on ACQUISITION COST, but on present market value
*rates should be based on present valuation of all the property of the public utility
can resolve cases in the soonest available time for the good of
the public
*VIGAN ELECTRIC V PSC
FACTS: PSC ordered Vigan Electric to reduce the rates it was Administrative Code, Book VII
collecting for its electric service (without hearing) [SEC10. COMPROMISE AND ARBITRATION]
HELD: Order VOID for being violative of DUE PROCESS (as was Every agency encourage amicable settlement, compromise
discussed in PHILCOMSAT) and arbitration
*LEGISLATIVE v QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION
LEGISLATIVE: rule-making power, power to fix rates meant to [SEC11. NOTICE AND HEARING IN CONTESTED CASES]
apply to ALL ENTERPRISES of a given kind THROUGHOUT THE 1. all parties entitled to notice and hearing
PHILIPPINES Notice: served at least 5 days before date of hearing
QUASI-JUDICIAL: applies EXCLUSIVELY to a single enterprise, …state DATE, TIME and PLACE of HEARING
affecting its rights and property 2. opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues
-requires HEARING and NOTICE to the propriety and …informal disposition may be made of any contested case by
reasonableness of the rates fixed stipulation
3. records of proceedings kept by agency
*PHILCOMSAT V ALCUAZ, supra
[SEC12. RULES OF EVIDENCE]
FACTS: Philcomsat was required to lower its rates 1. admit, give probative value to evidence
*HELD: Notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of
Commonly accepted by reasonably prudent man
administrative action in the exercise of EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE,
or LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS; BUT where a public administrative body In conduct of their affairs
acts in a JUDICIAL or QUASI-JUDICIAL matter, and its acts are 2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: may present copies or excerpts,
PARTICULAR and IMMEDIATE rather than general and prospective, the subject to review of parties
person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is 3. right to cross-examine, submit rebuttal evidence
entitled to notice and hearing. 4. JUDICIAL NOTICE:
.8.
Administrative Law Reviewer
-judicially cognizable facts
-generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within the
agency’s specialized knowledge
[SEC13. SUBPOENA]
-power to require attendance of witnesses
-power to require production of books, papers, documents and
other pertinent data UPON REQUEST+ show GENERAL
RELEVANCE
-INVOKE AID OF RTC to punish disobedience, UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW
[SEC14. DECISION]
-in writing
-shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based
-decide case within 30 days following its submission
-parties notified personally or by registered mail
[SEC15.FINALITY OF ORDER]
-final and executory 15d after the receipt of a copy thereof of
adverse party
-UNLESS: admin appeal or JR
-1 MFR, suspends running of period for appeal
*ON PROVISIONS OF ADMIN CODE: minimum standards,
allows elbow room for the agencies
a. Power to issue subpoena, declare contempt [SEC13]
-SHOULD BE EXPRESSLY GRANDTED BY LAW, or else invoke
-all have power to issue subpoenas to perform its adjudicative
functions
-contempt powers should be expressly provided by law
*IF THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES OR CONFERS
AUTHORITY TO THE AGENCY TO CITE A PERSON FOR
CONTEMPT THEN IT MAY DO SO. HOWEVER, IF NOT
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, THE AGENCY UNDER
SECTION 13, BOOK VII OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF
1987 MUST INVOKE THE AID OF THE RTC.
WHY EXPRESS POWER TO CITE PERSON IN CONTEMPT
NEEDED?
Power to declare a person in contempt is STRICTLY A JUDICIAL
POWER so it must be conferred by law
[PD 902-A]
SEC granted the following powers
-punish for contempt in accordance with the ROC
-issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witness to appear
*EVANGELISTA V JARENCIO
FACTS: President created PARGO, and vested it powers of an
investigating committee under the RAC. Manalastas issued a
subpoena ad testificandum. Manalastas questioned said
subpoena.
HELD: PARGO may issue subpoena
-PARGO was EXPRESSLY authorized by the EO which created it
the power to issue subpoena
-Administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the
course of investigations…
…WON adjudication is involved
…WON probable cause is shown
…even before the issuance of the complaint
TEST for valid enforcement of subpoena:
1. within the authority of the agency
2. demand not too indefinite
3. information reasonably relevant (general relevance)
IN INVOKING RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN ADMIN
PROCEEDINGS
-In administrative proceedings which are Punitive or quasi-
criminal in character, respondent in that case can invoke the
rights against self-incrimination. BUT when the person
.9.
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
invoking the right is a mere witness, the right is applied in a
question to question basis, not a blanket refusal.
*GUEVARRA V COMELEC
FACTS: alleged irregularities in COMELEC, Guevarra cited for
contempt for publishing an article regarding said irregularity
HELD: Although COMELEC had the power to cite persons in
contempt, this power CANNOT BE USED IN THE DISCHARGE
OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS – only in relation to their quasi-
judicial functions
CATURA V CIR
FACTS: CIR ordered Catura to provide CIR with the book of
accounts of the union.
HELD: CIR could validly order the presentation of the said
accounts
It is not for the SC to whittle down the authority conferred on
administrative agencies to assure the effective administration
of a statute. If the matter is properly within its cognizance, the
means necessary to give it force and effectiveness should be
deemed implied, unless the power sought to be exercised is
so arbitrary as to trench upon private rights.
TOLENTINO V INCIONG
FACTS: Inciong (SOLE) cited for contempt the Judge who
heard case in CFI and the President of the labor union.
HELD: SOLE cannot hold a CFI JUDGE IN CONTEMPT!
-a public official exercises power, not rights. The government
being an agent of the people, its officers are likewise agents
entrusted with responsibility of discharging its functions. As
such there is no presumption that the officers are empowered
to act. There must be a delegation of such authority, express
or implied, and in the absence of a valid grant they are devoid
of power.
*power to hold a person in contempt is not presumed, but
must be expressly or impliedly granted
b. Warrants of arrest, Administrative searches
[ARTIII.2, CONSTI]
No search warrant/ warrant of arrest shall issue
EXCEPT upon probable cause
To be determined PERSONALLY by the JUDGE
After examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce
And particularly describing place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized
Vs. 1973 consti: provided that other responsible officer as
may be authorized by law MAY issue warrants!
*QUA CHEE GAN V DEPORTATION BOARD
FACTS: Qua Chee Gan was arrested by the DB (acting as
agents of the president) after charges was brought against
him by the DB.
HELD: ILLEGAL ARREST
-the president’s power of investigation may be delegated and
DB is his authorized agent
-HOWEVER, power granted to DB does not extend to power to
arrest since it involved the exercise of discretion by the one
exercising the same, to determine whether under specific
circumstances, the curtailment of liberty is warranted
-Filing of a bond to ensure presence in deportation
proceedings enough
*Immigration authorities can only issue warrants of arrest against undesirable
aliens ONLY if such issuance is pursuant to a FINAL ORDER of deportation. They
cannot issue warrants for purposes of investigation, only judges can do so.
VIVO V MONTESA
FACTS: Calacaday brothers admitted to the Philippines
because they were allegedly sons of legitimate Filipino
citizens but their alleged father (in a fit of anger) disowned
them (later retracted). DB ordered for their arrest, for them to
show cause why they should not be deported. One of the
Administrative Law Reviewer
brothers who was not arrested prayed that deportation
proceedings be restrained…
HELD: CFI cannot restrain deportation proceedings
-issuance of warrants of arrest by commissioner SOLELY FOR
PURPOSES OF INVESTIGATION AND BEFORE FINAL ORDER OF
DEPORTATION unconstitutional – only judge could issue
warrants.
*consistent with Qua Chee Gan doctrine
SANTOS V COMMISSIONER
FACTS: Allegedly Chinese citizen detained pending
deportation proceedings. Chinese file petition for habeas
corpus and was ordered released
HELD: Warrant of arrest VOID
-applied 1935 Consti which only authorized JUDGE to
determine probable cause for issuing warrant of arrest
*Consistent with Qua Chee Gan doctrine
***IN THE 3 PRECEDING CASES, IT WAS HELD THAT THE
CONSTI MADE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE
AND CRIMINAL WARRANTS OF ARREST***
*HARVEY V DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
FACTS: suspected pedophiles were to be deported and
pending deportation proceedings, were ordered to be
arrested by Commissioner
HELD: Warrants VALID!
-VS. QUA CHEE GAN, this case held that requirement that
probable cause be determined personally by the judge DOES
NOT EXTEND TO DEPORTATION PROCEEDING, the
determination of the existence of a ground for deportation
could be determined by the commissioner
-ADMIN vs CRIM DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE: the
proceedings are NOT PENAL, merely PREVENTIVE
-requisites for issuance of warrants:
1. specific charge against the alien
2. a fair hearing conducted
3. charge be substantiated by competent evidence
*ruled that warrants may be issued by commissioner PENDING deportation
proceedings vs. Qua Chee Gan Doctrine
LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA V LIWAG
FACTS: LTVN, a French national, entered RP as a temporary
visitor but became an immigrant. However, he was reported
by his lessor to be an undesirable alien, and a MISSION
ORDER was issued by CID Commissioner to arrest LTVN. LTVN
refused arrest but was subsequently arrested. No proof that
warrant of arrest was served prior to arrest. Petition for
habeas corpus filed.
HELD: ARREST ILLEGAL, Petition MOOT and ACADEMIC
because released upon posting of bail
-still upheld power of commissioner to issue warrants, but this
time warrant was illegally issued because NO PROBABLE
CAUSE sufficient to justify the warrant.
*consistent with Harvey doctrine
*BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V DELAROSA
FACTS: William Gatchalian (plastic king of Valenzuela) came
from China, arriving from China as RP Citizens, with his
grandpa recognized as a native born RP citizen. Subsequently,
SOJ issued memo which ordered review of all cases wherein
entry was made on the ground that the entrants were RP
Citizens. Upon review, Gatchalian was included among those
who were ordered excluded and a warrant of exclusion was
issued. However, subsequently it was revoked. After almost
20 years, SOJ ordered mission orders upon recommendation
of NBI that Gatchalian et.al. had violated Immigration Act.
HELD: Mission orders VOID
*Consistent with Qua Chee Gan: Warrant of arrest can be
issued by Commissioner only after deportation proceedings
and for the sole purpose of executing a final order of
deportation.
. 10 .
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
*SALAZAR V ACHACOSO
FACTS: POEA issued warrants of search and seizure (or arrest)
upon complaint of illegal recruitment filed before it.
HELD: ONLY Judges could issue warrant of arrest in
accordance with the Consti
-the provision of the LC which authorized the SOLE to issue
warrants now declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, had no force and
effect
-EXCEPTION: President of RP/Commissioner of CID can issue
warrants ONLY IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT A FINAL DECISION
OF DEPORTATION in recognition of supremacy of the
Executive in matters of foreign affairs
*Consistent with Qua Chee Gan in upholding power to issue
warrants vested only in judge – and that Commissioner may
only issue warrants AFTER DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS
ALREADY TERMINATED
***SO AFTER HARVEY and LUCIEN cases, QUA CHEE GAN
DOCTRINE was subsequently reconsidered by SC
*CAMARA V MUNICIPAL COURT
FACTS: There was supposedly an inspection of a residential
house among the apartment building compound but the
owner refused entrance of the inspectors without a WARRANT
HELD: WARRANT NEEDED for search and seizure BEFORE
conducting a search
-right against unreasonable searches and seizure safeguarded
-right to privacy > right to public safety
-could still conduct inspection, BUT HAS TO ACQUIRE A
WARRANT to do so
DISSENT: it was common practice to conduct routinary
inspection without warrant since it is NOT A CRIMINAL
INSPECTION. If warrant needed every time a routine
inspection is conducted, then court would only serve as a
rubber stamp!
*SEE V SEATTLE
FACTS: locked commercial warehouse to be inspected for fire
protection but owner refused entry
HELD: UPHOLD right to privacy
-secure warrant first
-LIMITS on ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS OF CORPORATE
BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS
1. limited in scope
2. relevant in purpose
3. specific directives so that compliance will not be
unreasonably burdensome
4. subpoena must designate the deeded documents
5. subpoena may not be made and enforced in the field
6. subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of
reasonableness of demand prior to suffering penalties for
refusal to comply
*sir said that this case would have been different if the
warehouse was not locked.
c. Imposition of Fines and Penalties
*OCEANIC STEAM V STRANAHAN
FACTS: Shipping company seeks to recover the money it paid
to the Secretary of Commerce as a fine for clearance in
relation to the authority conferred by law to the Secretary to
refuse entry of ships with aliens afflicted with a loathsome or
dangerous contagious disease.
HELD: Secretary had power to impose such exaction
-TEST FOR VALIDITY (3 should all concur)
1. subject matter must be within the control of the Congress
to legislate
2. Penalty is administrative or civil, not criminal (i.e. no
corresponding service in jail if unable to pay)
3. power to impose fines must be expressly authorized by law
*Test for validity = framework to be used
Administrative Law Reviewer
*CAB v PAL
FACTS: CAB imposed fines against PAL for operating the
flagstop without permission.
HELD: CAB Could validly impose fines
-a fine in the nature of a civil penalty (i.e. not in the nature of
criminal penalty) that is exacted not so much as a penalty for
a violation of administrative rules but for the need to stress
desistance from wanton disregard of existing rules,
regulations, or requirements, is an administrative penalty
which administrative officers are empowered to impose
without criminal prosecution. If every time the agency had to
resort to courts of justice in protracted litigations, it could not
serve its purpose as an administrative body.
*nature of Administrative penalties
SCOTY’S DEPT. STORE V MICALLER
FACTS: CIR imposed a fine on the dept store for ULP
HELD: CIR not authorized by enabling law to impose fines
*if imposition of fines is not clearly stated in the enabling law, then it is a judicial
function
*US V BARRIAS
FACTS: Barrias, captain of the barge who used bamboo poles
instead of steam power to move the boat along the Pasig
River, was fined.
HELD: Penalty imposed invalid because the enabling law does
not provide for it. It was the local authorities who would
decide what penalty was to be given…
*fixing penalties for a criminal offense is a legislative power that cannot be
delegated
RCPI V BOARD OF COMMUNICATIONS
FACTS: 2 complaints vs RCPI before the BOC for damages
suffered by the said customers for the failure of company to
transmit impt. Telegrams
HELD: BOC cannot impose fines because said complaint asks
for damages, which is cognizable under regular courts of
justice
*DAMAGES for BOC not Administrative fines
PEREZ V LPG REFILLERS ASSOC
FACTS: Refillers assail circular issued by DOE which
implements the law which provides for penalties for acts
relating to trade of petroleum products
HELD: Circular valid
-for an administrative regulation to have the force and effect
of penal law, the following must concur:
1. the violation of the administrative regulation must be made
a crime by the enabling statute itself
2. the penalty must be provided for by the enabling statute
itself
*requisites for a rule to provide for valid penalties
C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards
-for purposes of determining WON there was delegation of
legislative power (i.e. there was sufficient standard and the
law provides for a policy which would guide the delegate on
how to implement the law)
1. Interest of Law and Order
RUBI V PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO
FACTS: mangyans relocated by PB of Mindoro, and refusal to
do so would result to imprisonment
HELD: Relocation valid
-no delegation of legislative power, only conferred authority or
discretion as to the execution pursuance to law
The PB best fitted to select the most favorable site for
improving the lives of the Mangyans
-government must guarantee the peace and order to
encourage immigrants to invest in Mindoro and to protect
crops and persons of settlers of Mindoro from predatory men
(i.e. the “uncultured” Mangyans)
. 11 .
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
2. Public Interest
PEOPLE v. ROSENTHAL
FACTS: Blue Sky Law assailed
HELD: Blue Sky Law constitutional, no delegation of legislative
power
-Insular Treasurer can only cancel certificates or permits upon
finding that such a cancellation is in the public interest.
3. Justice, equity and substantial merits of the case
INTL HARDWOOD V PANGIL FED
FACTS: SOLE certified a labor dispute to CIR. ER assailed the
jurisdiction of the CIR to determine minimum wages dispute
HELD: no undue delegation, CIR can validly determine
minimum wages under assailed law
-CIR could validly take cognizance of the case, acting
according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the
case. These standards are sufficient to guide CIR in exercising
discretion in the determination of any question or controversy
before it.
4. What is moral, educational or amusing.
MUTUAL FILMS V INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
FACTS: Board of censors wanted the films (2500 in all!) to be
reviewed first before it would be exhibited. Mutual films
complained that the Board of censors would not be able to do
so before the showing date, and that the enabling law is
unconstitutional for it does not provide the Board of sufficient
standards of what is educational, moral, amusing or harmless
HELD: Statute CONSTITUTIONAL, there are sufficient
standards in the law itself. The statute guards against such
variant judgments and its terms get precision from the sense
of men and become certain and useful guidelines in reasoning
and conduct.
*sufficient standards na daw ung educational, moral, amusing
or harmless, and its meaning can be derived from the sense
of men…[cf: next case]
5. what is sacrilegious
BURSTYN V WILSON
FACTS: Film declared as “sacrilegious” and was banned from
exhibition
HELD: The standard used by the enabling law (SACRILEGIOUS)
is not sufficient in itself. UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER
-the term “sacrilegious” based on the “sense and standards of
the community” is too vague a standard
6. adequate and efficient instruction
PACU V SECRETARY
FACTS: petitioners argue that DEPed Sec given unlimited
power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards of
adequate and efficient instruction to be observed by private
schools and colleges for permit to operate, therefore
unconstitutional
HELD: Constitutional, no undue delegation of legislative power
-the power to provide rules based on adequate and efficient
instruction is a sufficient standard
7. reasonableness as an implied standard
WISCONSIN INSPECTION BUREAU V WHITMAN
FACTS: Wisconsin Rating Act required insurance companies to
submit its rulebooks. Insurance companies assailed the law
for giving the commissioner unlimited power – no standards
that would govern his action
HELD: There is an implied standard: REASONABLENESS
-administrative bodies and officers must act not only within
their statutory powers but in a REASONABLE AND ORDERLY
MANNER. The rule of reasonableness inheres in every law, and
the acts of those charged with its enforcement must be
subject to the test of reasonableness.
*every law is implied to have a standard of reasonableness
8. to promote simplicity, economy or efficiency
Administrative Law Reviewer
CERVANTES V AUDITOR GENERAL
FACTS: the resolution of NAFCO’s Board of Directors which
proposed quarters allowance in favor of Cervantes was denied
in accordance with RA 51 which allowed President to make
such reforms and changes for the purpose of promoting
simplicity, economy or efficiency
HELD: EO of President disallowing the resolution in Cervantes
favor is VALID. There was sufficient standard
9. maintain monetary stability, promote rising level of
production and real income
PEOPLE V JOLIFFE
FACTS: MB authorized to punish violators of its circulars, Joliffe
being one of them for hoarding gold bullins without license
HELD: Such authority as conferred by enabling law is
CONSTITUTIONAL, no undue delegation of legislative power
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
A. admin code (BOOK VII, SEC1-26)
B. In Rule-making, price, wage, or rate-fixing
[SEC9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION]
1. an agency shall publish or circulate notices of
proposed rules
afford interested parties opportunity to submit their views
prior to adoption of any rule
2. in fixing rates: published proposed rates at least 2
weeks before 1st hearing
3. in case of opposition: rules on contested cases shall
be observed (chapter 3 on adjudication)
C. In Adjudicatin of Cases
1. Rules of Procedure
Administrative Code, Book VII
[SEC10. COMPROMISE AND ARBITRATION]
Every agency encourage amicable settlement, compromise
and arbitration
[SEC11. NOTICE AND HEARING IN CONTESTED CASES]
1. all parties entitled to notice and hearing
Notice: served at least 5 days before date of hearing
…state DATE, TIME and PLACE of HEARING
2. opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues
…informal disposition may be made of any contested case by
stipulation
3. records of proceedings kept by agency
[SEC12. RULES OF EVIDENCE]
1. admit, give probative value to evidence
Commonly accepted by reasonably prudent man
In conduct of their affairs
2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: may present copies or excerpts,
subject to review of parties
3. right to cross-examine, submit rebuttal evidence
4. JUDICIAL NOTICE:
-judicially cognizable facts
-generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within the
agency’s specialized knowledge
[SEC13. SUBPOENA]
-power to require attendance of witnesses
-power to require production of books, papers, documents and
other pertinent data UPON REQUEST+ show GENERAL
RELEVANCE
-INVOKE AID OF RTC to punish disobedience, UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW
[SEC14. DECISION]
-in writing
-shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based
-decide case within 30 days following its submission
. 12 .
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
-parties notified personally or by registered mail
[SEC15.FINALITY OF ORDER]
-final and executory 15d after the receipt of a copy thereof of
adverse party
-UNLESS: admin appeal or JR
-1 MFR, suspends running of period for appeal
2. Due process
a. Cardinal Primary Rights
*ANG TIBAY V CIR
FACTS: Employees temporarily laid off due to shortage of
leather. CIR subsequently ruled in favor of ER so EEs appealed
to SC, saying that CIR should be bound by technical rules of
procedure.
HELD: CIR not bound by technical rules of procedure, but
must still observe due process
*Cardinal Primary Rights
1. Right to hearing: present case, adduce evidence
2. tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. decision must be supported by evidence
4. evidence must be substantial
substantial evidence:
…such relevant evidence
…as a reasonable mind might accept
…as adequate to support a conclusion
5. decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at
the hearing or contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected
6. Independent consideration of the judge: not simply accept
the view of subordinate in arriving at a decision
7. decision must be rendered in such a manner as to let the
parties know the issues involved and the reasons for the
decision rendered
ASPREC V ITCHON
FACTS: Surveyor who executed wrong survey plan contests
cancellation of his license, allegedly in violation of due
process
HELD: They were the ones who did not attend the hearing
-The presence of a party is not always the essence of due
process. What the law requires is that parties be given
NOTICE of the trial and an OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
*presence not required in the proceedings, as long as given opportunity to be
heard
VINTA MARITIME V NLRC
FACTS: Foreigner verbally barrated EE, allegedly the EE was
given fair warning and enough opportunity to explain his
gross negligence and incompetence so he was dismissed. EE
filed case in POEA, POEA decided case in favor of the EE
based on the mutual agreement of the parties to submit
position papers and supporting papers. ER complains
HELD: Opportunity to be heard through position papers
sufficient, trial discretionary and cannot be demanded from
the Administrative Agency.
*conduct of trial discretionary in administrative agencies (sabi ni sir unless the
enabling law itself provides for trial)
SHOPPES MANILA V NLRC
FACTS: ee dismissed for alleged shoplifting of Bayo apparel
HELD: Hearing discretionary upon Labor Arbiter, cannot be
demanded, decision could be based merely on position papers
BACHRACH MOTOR V CIR
FACTS: An EE dismissed for alleged violations of Motor vehicle
law resulting to damage to property of company. GM of the
company testified before the proceedings but left early so
EE’s side was not able to cross-examine the said witness
HELD: If not able to cross examine the witness, the testimony
could be stricken off from the records of the proceedings
*the right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witness in a judicial
litigation, criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
Administrative Law Reviewer ~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due -when it affects a person’s status and liberty
process

MONTEMAYOR V BUNDALIAN 2. when not required

FACTS: DPWH official alleged to have amassed wealth from
lahar funds
HELD: even when not able to cross-examine the complainant,
the active participation in the proceedings removed any
badge of procedural infirmity
UP BOR V CA
FACTS: Indian citizen who took her doctoral degree in UP
submitted a plagiarized dissertation. UP revoked her diploma
after she graduated.
HELD: Withdrawal was valid, done in accordance with due
process
*ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO. V CA
FACTS: the appointed secretary of DANR reviewed on appeal
HIS OWN DECISION
HELD: The reviewing officer must perforce be other than the
officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could
be no different view or there would be no review of the case
-urgent reasons
-when discretion is exercised by the officer vested with it
upon an undisputed fact
SUNTAY V PEOPLE
FACTS: Suntay was charged with seduction so DFA Sec
cancelled his passport
HELD: not notice and hearing required because it was DFA
Sec’s discretion to cancel his license upon an undisputed fact
that justifies the cancellation, i.e. criminal charges against
him
-valid exercise of police power
POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD V CA
FACTS: PAB issued an ex parte cease and desist order based
on the reports of previous inspections wherein the company
was found to be discharging toxic chemicals in the river
HELD: no notice and hearing needed because the situation
(pollution) cannot be made o wait until protracted litigation
has run its full course
-protect public interest so exercise of police power

RIVERA V CSC c. Form and promulgation of judgment

FACTS: CSC commissioner reviews her decision as a Board [SEC14. DECISION]
Chairman -in writing
HELD: Zambales Chromite ulit! -shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based
AMERICAN INTERFASHION CORP V OFFICE OF THE PREXI -decide case within 30 days following its submission
FACTS: allegedly coerced to withdraw petition before which -parties notified personally or by registered mail
alleged charges not supported by evidence
HELD: evidence on record must be fully disclosed to the [SEC15.FINALITY OF ORDER]
parties -final and executory 15d after the receipt of a copy thereof of
adverse party
PEFIANCO V MORAL -UNLESS: admin appeal or JR
FACTS: Librarian of the National Library wanted a copy of the -1 MFR, suspends running of period for appeal
investigation committee report finding her guilty of pilferage
so filed petition for mandamus ANG TIBAY GUIDELINE (7): deci should state facts, issues and
HELD: mandamus would not lie law upon which it is based, and the reasons for such decision
*respondents in administrative cases not entitled to be informed of the findings of
the investigative committees but only of the decision of the administrative body …on form of the decision
INDIAS V PHIL IRON MINES
NAPOLCOM V BERNABE FACTS: CIR rendered a decision stating that “after a perusal of
FACTS: bernabe assails decision of NAPOLCOM to dismiss him the records of the case, the Court finds no sufficient
based on affidavits (without hearing) justification for modifying said recommendation (of the CIR
HELD: due process satisfied with Bernabe’s submission of a hearing officer that EE was dismissed for just cause), findings
point-by-point affidavit which answered each allegation and conclusions, and consequently, this case is hearby
against him dismissed.”
HELD: CIR decision valid
GOSS V LOPEZ -it is not necessary to discuss own findings of fact when it is
FACTS: DP allegedly not observed when students were satisfied with the report of the examiner or referee which
suspended without hearing, and cannot appeal already contains a full discussion of the evidence and the
HELD: only need “some kind of notice, some kind of hearing” findings of fact based thereon – the report of the examiner
was recited in the decision so not necessary
*when the findings of fact and the discussion of the evidence made by the
MATTHEWS V ELRIDGE subordinates of the judge or referee is sufficient and the judge or referee is
FACTS: DP allegedly violated because no full blown satisfied with it then the judge could just copy it in the body of his decision
evidentiary hearing was held to declare the termination of
benefits SERRANO V PSC
HELD: 3 distinct factors to be considered for administrative FACTS: PSC denied the application of Serrano to operate taxi
due process to be sufficient: cabs without stating the reason for doing so
1. private interest to be affected HELD: PSC decision invalid
2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest and the -Consti provision applies only to regular courts of justice but
probable value of additional safeguards Ang Tibay Case provides a guideline that judges should render
3. gov’t’s interest vis-à-vis government costs its decision in such a manner as to inform the parties the
issues involved and the reasons for the decision
b. Notice and Hearing *applies Ang Tibay (7)
1. When required
-when they involve a fine/penalty/sanction [NDC V ALBERT V GANGAN
COLLECTOR] FACTS: COA decision holding Albert liable did not state the
-when the law specifically requires notice and hearing [LABOR facts upon which he was held liable
CODE]

. 13 .
Administrative Law Reviewer ~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
HELD: The decision must state the facts and the laws upon FACTS: BSI rendered decision on Sept. 11, 1961. BOC
which the decision was based. Conclusions of law, facts and reviewed said decision and reversed BSI decision on Sept 4,
circumstances are not sufficient. 1962 but copy of the decision received Oct, and it was argued
*applies Ang Tibay (7) that the decision should be received by the parties concerned
within the 1 year period
…on who should make decisions HELD: valid reversal
DOH V CAMPOSANO *the sending and receipt of the decision not necessary to be
FACTS: DOH issued order dismissing charged EEs based on within 1 year
the resolution of the PCAGC (when SEC of DOH expressly
tasked to resolve the case) 3. Jurisdiction
HELD: cannot delegate the power to decide on the case Admin agencies only exercise such powers as are
*applies Ang TIbay (6) -explicitly conferred
-necessary implication
*AMERICAN TOBACCO V DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, supra …check enabling statute
FACTS: Director of patents made rule that hearing would be
held by subordinates, but he would still decide on the merits FELICIANO V DIRECTOR OF PATENTS
of the case FACTS: Director of patents asked to compel one of the parties
HELD: Valid rule, cannot delegate the power to decide on a to sign a contract
case but can delegate the power to hear the case HELD: NO JURISDICTION
-the validity of the contract is a civil law question which has to
REALTY EXCHANGE VENTURE CORP V SENDINO be resolved in a regular court of justice
FACTS: HLURB decided a case in division, not en banc
HELD: Enabling law of HLURB authorized the agency to adopt SYQUIA V BOARD OF POWER AND WATERWORKS
rules of procedure for the conduct of its business. FACTS: Landlady who charged fro electricity charged with
-the power to delegate a particular function can be implied offense of selling electricity without permit
from the power of administrative agencies to issue rules and HELD: NO JURISDICTION
regulations necessary to carry out its functions. -under Public Service Act, Board has jurisdiction over Public
services and their franchises BUT since Syquia is not engaged
…on finality of order in public service nor sale of electricity without permit, no
*VIVO V AROCHA (earlier case in BOC V DELAROSA) jurisdiction
FACTS: board of special inquiry (BSI) decision reviewed by -the question that is purely civil in character to be adjudged
BOC and reversed it. CA 613 empowers BOC to review under NCC by regular courts of justice
decision either upon appeal or motu proprio within 1 year. It
was contested that the decision was already final when GO TEK V DEPORTATION BOARD
reviewed by BOC (BSI deci rendered July 6, 1961 and the BOC FACTS: undesirable alien, prayed for immediate deportation of
allegedly decided on July 6, 1962 but extenso report indicated Gotek for (1) being commander of US Guerilla unit; (2)
date was July 20, 1961 which was beyond the 1 year period Violation of A168 of RPC. Go Tek filed MD arguing that the
for review) said grounds were not among those grounds to deport an
HELD: The review was done within the 1 year period, which alien
should be counter from the time the Commissioners as a HELD: HAS JURISDICTION
board voted – not from the time when the extenso report was -state has inherent power to deport undesirable aliens –
prepared POLICE POWERS
-decision in extenso must relate back to the day the resolution -President has full discretion to determine desirability of alien
to exclude was actually adopted -EO for deportation not dependent upon prior judicial
*BOC wanted an earlier date (in 1962) so that its review would be within the 1 year determination in criminal case
period

VERA V CUEVAS
NERIA V COI
FACTS: BIR used s169 on skimmed mild to investigate on
FACTS: Decision of BSI issued on Aug. 2, 1961. BOC reviewed
Filled milk manufacturers
the decision pursuant to CA613 and rendered a decision on
HELD: NO JURISDICTION
Aug 8, 1962 but the records were altered to show that the
-provision relied on was mere declaratory provision with no
decision was made Aug. 2. It was also argued that the date
tax purpose, BIR had no jurisdiction
when the 1 year of reckoning would be made should be from
*BIR has jurisdiction if law provides for tax purposes
September 1961 when the parties received
HELD: Alteration in this case was with malice. Decision
already final and executory when BOC reversed it. DE LA FUENTE V DE VEYRA
*BOC wanted to show that they made the decision within 1 yr period so altered the FACTS: Smuggled goods confiscated by customs ordered to
1962 date to an earlier date. They were arguing that the 1 year should be be released by CFI even if subject of seizure proceedings
computed from date of receipt of the decision so that they could have until
September to review the case HELD: CFI has no jurisdiction
-the collector of customs when sitting in a forfeiture
GO YU TAK WAI V VIVO proceeding constitutes a tribunal expressly vested by law with
jurisdiction to hear and determine subject matter without any
FACTS: BSI decision finding that Go Yu Tak Wai waas a Filipino
interference from CFI
citizen rendered Mar 27, 1961. BOI reviewed BSI decision and
rendered deci on Mar 11, 1962 excluding petitioner. Extenso
***SINCE examples lang naman ung ibang cases, wag na….***
report prepared only on Aug 1963. It was argued that the
date of preparation of the written decision should also be
4. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings arising from
within the 1 year period
same facts
HELD: NO. Vivo v Arocha case already held that date of
preparation of extenso relates back to the day when the GALANG V CA
Commissioners voted and resolved to reverse BSI decision FACTS: illegal alien breached admin provision (not properly
*preparation of written decision not necessary to be within 1 year documented) and criminal provision (fraudulent
representation as Filipino citizen)
SICHANGCO V BOC
. 14 .
Administrative Law Reviewer
HELD: The difference in the proceedings is not legal
incompatibility but merely physical incompatibility (cannot be
tried simultaneously since there is only 1 accused that would
be required to appear before 2 separate courts)
-2 proceedings independent of each other, involves different
COA, can proceed simultaneously
*physical incompatibility
VILLANOS V SUBIDO
FACTS: teacher made libelous statements against
superintendent so charged with libel (crim case) and
discourtesy and immoral conduct (admin case). She was
found guilty of libel so it was argued that she should also be
found guilty of the administrative charges against her
HELD: CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASE NOT AUTOMATICALLY
MAKES THE RESPONDENT GUILTY IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE
- there are defenses, excuses, and attenuating circumstances
of value in administrative proceedings that are not admissible
in trial of the criminal case which can have a blunting effect
on the conviction.
*no automatic conviction when criminally convicted
POLCOM v LOOD
FACTS: Police officers guilty in administrative case, acquitted
in criminal case because of insufficiency of evidence. They’re
arguing that they should be reinstated because their guilt was
not proven in crim case.
HELD: acquittal in criminal case does not carry with it relief
from administrative liability.
*acquittal in criminal case has no effect on administrative case
OCAMPO V OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
FACTS: training coordinator of NAICONSULT acquitted in
criminal proceedings. He was dismissed from service (guilty in
admin case) but he appealed, saying that his acquittal from
crim proceedings should automatically dismiss the admin
case against him
HELD: acquittal in crim case no effect on admin case
Difference
- quantum of evidence required: guilt beyond reasonable
doubt vs preponderance of evidence vs substantial evidence
- procedure required
- admissibility of evidence
-sanctions imposed
5. Rules of evidence
-apply specific rules of evidence of administrative agency
-administrative agencies not bound by technical rules of
evidence, so long as due process is observed (Ang Tibay v CIR
case also mentioned that admin agencies not bound by
technical rules in ordinary courts as long as due process is
observed)
-reason: flexibility and speed in dispensing with cases
PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS ASSN V PREMIER
PRODUCTION
FACTS: CIR conducted an ocular inspection and on that basis
authorized lay-off of EEs
HELD: ocular inspection is proper if the court finds it
necessary but such is authorized ONLY TO HELP the court in
clearing a doubt, reaching a conclusion or finding the truth. It
is merely an auxiliary remedy.
ESTATE OF BUAN V PAMBUSCO
FACTS: Estate applies for CPC but Pambusco assails the
application, alleging that there are sufficient routes already.
Commission conducted an on-the-spot survey and decided
the case
HELD: here, on the spot survey was proper since it was only
used to confirm which among the conflicting evidences
presented by the party is true
. 15 .
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
***So summary on on-the-spot ocular surveys:
Ocular surveys are proper only when
1. courts finds it necessary in clearing a doubt, reaching
a conclusion or finding the truth [phil. Movie pictures
v premiere]
2. there are other supporting evidences which might be
conflicting [estate of buan v pambusco]
V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
-an effective mechanism of checks and balance
-usually involves
(1) question of constitutionality
(2) history of the statute involved
(3) nature of the problem
-right or privilege
-question of law or question of fact – only questions of law
-question of discretion – not reviewable unless with GAD
-question of policy – not reviewable
*BEFORE JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE RESORTED TO,
DETERMINE
1. if could be subject to review
2. if administrative remedies already exhausted
3. if there is concurrence of original jurisdiction over the issue,
which court would decide
4. if the party seeking JR has standing
A. Factors affecting finality of administrative
decisions
SWITCHMEN’S UNION V NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
FACTS: Unions wanted a different bargaining representative
for each bargaining unit but after an election, employees
elected that they wanted one union to represent all of them.
Union wanted a review of the Board’s order of election
HELD: Courts cannot review decision of the board?
*Where no judicial review was provided by Congress (in the
enabling law) the SC has often refused to furnish one even
where questions of law might be involved (since executive
agencies were delegated to determine complicated questions
of fact and of law).
*Where congress has not expressly authorized judicial review:
when JR may still be supplied:
(1) type of problem involved (Question of
law/fact/discretion/policy)
(2) history of statute in question (WON Congress intended JR)
*JR can’t be conducted if Congress did not intend review of agency’s actions
CHEVRON V NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
FACTS: Agency provided own definition of “stationary source”
of air pollution when the enabling law did not do so. CA set
aside said regulations
HELD: Court cannot review definition given by agency
-If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill,
there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to
elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation.
-A court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory
provision or a reasonable interpretation made by the
administrator or agency
*JR cannot be exercised when the action involves the filling-up function of the
agency (when there is a valid delegation to ascertain facts and provide
interpretative rules)
FORTRICH V CORONA
FACTS: Sumilao farmers case. Earlier resolution decided that
land should be converted and developed. After lapse of period
to appeal (And no appeal was made), Office of the President
modified its decision.
HELD: Modification VOID.
-when no MFR seasonably filed, agencies decision final and
executory and cannot be reviewed. The orderly administration
of justice requires the judgments of courts and quasi-judicial
agencies reach a point of finality set by law, rules, and
regulations
*JR cannot be done when judgment to be reviewed already final and executory
Administrative Law Reviewer ~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
(2) GAD
ANITQUE SAWMILL V ZAYCO (3) Error of law
FACTS: public bidding already final when MFR filed beyond (4) Fraud or collusion
reglementary period. (5) Act violates or fails to comply with mandatory
HELD: MFR which was entertained VOID provision of law
-non quieta movera: cannot disturb what is settled (6) Act corrupt, arbitrary or capricious
-although technical rules may be relaxed in administrative *JR when admin agencies exercise QJ or legislative functions
agencies in the interest of justice and equity, a period for
appeal is JURISdICTIONAL, MANDATORY so cannot be relaxed SUMMARY
*Administrative agencies also observe strict compliance of reglementary periods GENERAL RULE: Courts may not review administrative
actions ESPECIALLY WHEN
SOTTO V RUIZ (1) the enabling law does not provide for it and the Congress
FACTS: Director of posts refuses to mail publication of Sotto did not intend the actions to be reviewed (SWITCHMEN V
for containing “libelous matters” NMB)
HELD: Director of posts wrong! (2) the action involved is an exercise of the agency of the
-although exercised discretion which is generally not subject Congress’ valid delegation of the power to “fill-up” gaps in the
to JR, actions of administrative officers must be subject to enabling law (CHEVRON V NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
revision by courts in case he had abused his discretion or COUNCIL)
exceeded his authority (3) the action is already FINAL and EXECUTORY (FORTRICH V
*JR available even if review of exercise of discretion when (1) abused his CORONA)
discretion; (2) exceeded his authority (4) the action involved exercise of discretion (UY v PALOMAR,
SOTTO V RUIZ)
*UY V PALOMAR (5) the action involves quasi-judicial or legislative powers of
FACTS: Director of posts refuses to mail Uy’s mail for the administrative agency (MANUEL V VILLENA, SMC V SOLE)
allegedly being a lottery (6) NO EXHAUSTIN OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES YET!
HELD: Director of posts wrong Reasoning: Administrative agencies are deemed to be
-The action of administrative officer exercising discretion is equipped with technical knowledge to determine
subject to review by the courts in case he exceeded his administrative questions and nonlegal matters (MANUEL V
authority or his act is palpably wrong, notwithstanding the VILLENA)
absence of statutory provisions for such review EXCEPTION (mostly enumerated in SMC v SOLE case):
*JR still available (even if exercise of discretion + Congress silent on JR) if action is (1) when admin agency exceeded its authority or jurisdiction
(1) exceeded authority or (2) act is palpably wrong (2) when there is GAD – acted arbitrarily without regard to
duty
***RULE ON JR ON EXERCISE OF DISCRETION OF ADMIN. (3) when error of law involved
AGENCIES: (4) fraud or collusion
GR: NO JR when admin agencies exercise discretion (5) act violates law, or constitution
EXCEPTION: (1) act is palpably wrong
(2) exceeded authority B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
[just use UY v PALOMAR]
*PASCUAL V PROVINCIAL BOARD
*MANUEL V VILLENA FACTS: Pascual, elected mayor, was charged admistratively.
FACTS: Petitioner seeks annulment of decision of Director of Sought writ of prohibition from SC, CFI.
Public Forestry which dismissed the protest filed by the HELD: No need for exhaustion of administrative remedies
petitioner GR: Where the law has delineated the procedure by which
HELD: administrative appeal or remedy could be effected, the same
GR: courts refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be
administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of their initiated
administrative functions since they are better equipped X: rule of exhaustion will be relaxed where
technically to decide administrative questions and nonlegal (1) GAD
factors (2) Question in dispute is purely legal one, nothing of an
X: administrative nature to be or can be done
(1) exceeded authority (3) Steps to be taken are mere matters of form and the
(2) exercised unconstitutional powers administrative process (of judgment) is over
(3) clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his (4) Administrative remedy is not exclusive but merely
duty (GAD) cumulative or concurrent to judicial remedy
(4) decision vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake (optional)
*JR on ordinary exercise of administrative functions
ALZATE V ALDANA
*SMC V SOLE FACTS: Pending appeal, petitioner filed petition for mandamus
FACTS: EE allegedly violated company policy by buying the for fear that the salary he was supposed to receive would be
drugs given to his co-EEs, and was dismissed. DOLE ruled in reverted to the general funds of the Government if not
favor of the EE. disbursed.
HELD: SUMMARY HELD: No need to exhaust administrative remedies
GR: there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize X: requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies would
acts of administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or effect to nullification of claim
legislative power on questions of law and jurisdiction even
though no right of review is given by statute. CIPRIANO V MARCELINO
-purpose of JR :
(1) keep admin agency within its jurisdiction FACTS: Petitioner deprived of her salary after resigning, filed
(2) protect substantial rights of parties affected by its petitione for mandamus for treasurer to pay her salary.
decisions HELD: No need to exhaust administrative remedies
X: when JR proper X: doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies should
(1) lack of jurisdiction be relaxed when application may cause great and irreparable
damage, oppressive and patently unreasonable (because if
. 16 .
Administrative Law Reviewer
exhaust, inflation would render her salary due to be not worth
much)
CORPUZ V CUADERNO
FACTS: CB EE dismissed, filed case before CFI for certiorari…
HELD: no need to exhaust administrative remedies
X: doctrine not applicable when enabling law does not provide
for administrative remedies. CS law cannot apply even if this
covers government body because CB has own charter.
PAREDES V CA
FACTS: Director of patents promulgated new rules. Registered
patent agents filed petition for prohibition to enjoin
enforcement of new rules
HELD: should have exhausted
-where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for
administrative review, and provides a system of
administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts, FOR
REASONS OF LAW, COMITY, and CONVENIENCE, will not
entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies
have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have
been given opportunity to act and correct errors committed in
the administrative forum.
QUASHA V SEC
FACTS: petitioners filed complaints with SEC but without
resorting to the procedure in SEC, appealed case with SC
HELD: no need to exhaust
X: when recourse would not be a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy
REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: Sequestration case. Only after 7 years did PCGG
invoke the doctrine of administrative remedies
HELD: No need to exhaust
X: (1) estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine
(2) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal
amounting to lack of jurisdiction
(3) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that
will irretrievably prejudice the complainang
(4) where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice
*LOPEZ V CITY OF MANILA
FACTS: Taxpayer assailed City ordinance increasing taxes on
his land
HELD: should have exhausted
X (addition to PAAT v CA)
1. Claim involved is so small (like in Cipriano v Marcelino)
2. strong public interest involved
*SMART V NTC
FACTS: parties assail constitutionality f NTC Circular
HELD: No need to exhaust administrative remedies
-doctrine applies ONLY WHERE THE ACT OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CONCERNED WAS PERFORMED
PURSUANT TO ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION, not when the
assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative
power.
X: no need to exhaust administrative remedies when (1) act
pertains to rule-making or quasi-legislative power; (2)
constitutionality of said rule is in question
*ESTRADA V CA
FACTS: petitioners seek to nullify lease contract that would
cause pollution to Subic
HELD: should exhaust administrative remedies
GR: exhaust administrative remedies
Reasoning: (1) lesser expenses
(2) speedier disposition of controversies
(3) reasons of comity and convenience
. 17 .
~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
(4) give administrative agency concerned every opportunity
to correct its error and to dispose of the case
X:
(1) violation of due process
(2) purely legal question involved
(3) action patently illegal, excess in jurisdiction
(4) estoppel on the part of the agency concerned
(5) irreparable injury
(6) when respondent is a department secretary whose
acts bears the implied and assumed approval of the
President (therefore, no need to appeal up to the
president)
(7) unreasonable if exhaust
(8) amount to nullification of the claim
(9) subject matter is private land in a land case
proceedings
(10) rule does not provide for a PSA remedy
(11) when there are circumstances indicating urgency of
JR
same with PAAT v CA plus:
(12) no administrative review is provided by law
(13) rule of qualified political agency applies
(14) issue of non-exhaustion of admin remedies moot
*pinakasummary
*REGINO V PANGASINAN COLLEGES
FACTS: student not allowed to take exams for failing to pay
P100 ticket for rave party, filed for damages
HELD: no need to exhaust
X: doctrine not applicable when complaint is for damages
governed by NCC
C. Primary Jurisdiction
-court of justice and administrative agency BOTH HAVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over a case
-primary jurisdiction because when both have jurisdiction over
the case, the case is handed over to the administrative
agency which is deemed to have primary jurisdiction to hear
the case
*TEXAS & PACIFIC V ABILENE
FACTS: Abilene sued T&P for excessive rates before TC. T&P
argued that ICC has jurisdiction to hear case regarding
propriety of rates
HELD: ICC has primary jurisdiction
-GR: courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is
one which requires the expertise of administrative agencies
and the legislative intent on the matter is to have UNIFORMITY
OF RULINGS.
-can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction
between the court and the administrative agency
-it is a question of the court yielding to the agency because of
the latter’s agency and DOES NOT AMOUNT TO OUSTER of the
court
X: If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction – not primary
jurisdiction but exclusive and original jurisdiction
*PHIL.GLOBALCOM V RELOVA
FACTS: PhilGlobe applied for authority to establish a branch in
Cebu but was opposed. Respondents filed PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF before TC
HELD: Petition for declaratory relief PROPER
GR: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction calls for application
when there is such competence to act on the part of the
administrative body
X: legal question which is more appropriate for the judiciary
than the administrative agency to resolve
VIADAD V RTC
FACTS: teachers dismissed for failing to comply with return-
to-work orders. Filed petition for prohibition…
Administrative Law Reviewer ~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
HELD: doctrine applies (although there is no concurrence in
jurisdiction)
EFFECT OF DOCTRINE: It behooves the court to suspend its
action on the case pending before it pending the final
outcome of the administrative proceedings.

INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES V CA
FACTS: IEI entered a MOA with the MMIC wherein IEI assigned
its rights over the mining block. IEI filed case for rescission
with RTC to rescind MOA. BED has jurisdiction to determine
who could develop said mining blocks
HELD: doctrine applies
-doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when proceedings
initiated with courts but admin agency also has jurisdiction
over the case and then the question involved requires the
expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper
administrative agency: (1) technical matters; (2) intricate
questions of facts involved
-EFFECT: merely suspend judicial proceedings, does not
dismiss it

CONRAD V CA
FACTS: Dispute over the use of the tradename “SUNSHINE
BISCUITS”. The tradename was already registered with BPTTT
then the losing party filed suit with RTC for injunction with
damages
HELD: doctrine DOES NOT APPLY
X: the issue involved is clearly a factual question that does
not require specialized skills and knowledge for resolution to
justify the exercise of primary jurisdiction

PHIL VETERANS BANK V CA

FACTS: Appealed just compensation for land of PVB
HELD: DAR has jurisdiction, not RTC
-even if concurrent jurisdiction, decision rendered in admin
agency’s primary jurisdiction is still subject to review of the
ordinary courts

D. Standing to Challenge

. 18 .