Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 27

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY.

PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
DOCTRINES

GENERAL CONSIDERATION:

MALAGA v. PENACHOS
GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY
DEFINED: Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department
framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers,
administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory
agencies, chartered institutions, and governmentowned or controlled corporations.

DE LA LLANA v. ALBA
Valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of the incumbents. ... And, of course, if the abolition is void, the
incumbent is deemed never to have ceased to hold office. The abolition of an office does not amount to an illegal removal
of its incumbent is the principle that, in order to be valid, the abolition must be made in good faith."

POWERS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES:
TIO v. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD
"The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to
what it shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of
the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter, no valid objection can be made."

U.S. v. ANG TANG HO
THE LAW MUST BE COMPLETE, IN ALL ITS TERMS AND PROVISIONS, when it leaves the legislative branch of the
government, and nothing must be left to the judgement of delegate of 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, if necessary, upon the ascertainment of any
prescribed fact or event.

YNOT v. IAC
The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous
opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable
guidelines, or better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make their distribution. There is none.

MARCOS v. MANGLAPUS
It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be
executive.

CARINO v. CHR
FACT FINDING IS NOT
ADJUDICATION, AND CANNOT BE LIKENED TO THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION OF A COURT OF JUSTICE, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and
ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered such, the faculty of receiving
evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to
those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and
definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission
does not have.

LLDA v. COURT OF APPEALS
ISSUANCE OF CEASE & DESIST ORDER IS IMPLIED POWER TO THE
POWOER TO REGULTE AND
ADJUDICATE. In the exercise of its express powers under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect
to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is, perforce,
implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced to a "toothless" paper agency.

RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE CO.

1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO
CARLO ANGELO CABRITO
v. NLRC
It is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies
to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect.

QUASI- LEGISLATIVE POWER:

CRUZ v. YOUNGBERG
The true distinction between the delegation of power to make the law, which involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and
conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of law. First cannot be
done; to the latter no valid objection can be made.
ARANETA v. GATMAITAN
Even without the Executive Order, the restriction and banning of trawl fishing from all Philippine waters come, under the
law, within the powers of the Secretary of Agriculture, who in compliance with his duties may even cause the criminal
prosecution of those who violate his instructions.
PEOPLE v. MACERAN
All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that it should
conform to the standards that the law prescribes. In the instant case the regulation penalizing electro fishing is not
strictly in accordance with the Fisheries Law, under which the regulation was issued.
BAUTIS TA v. JUINIO, EDU,
RAMOS
While the imposition of a fine or the suspension of registration under the conditions therein set forth is valid under the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code, the impounding of a vehicle finds no statutory justification. To apply that portion of
Memorandum Circular No. 39 would be ultra vires. It must likewise be made clear that a penalty even if warranted can only
be imposed in accordance with the procedure required by law.

PHIL. CONSUMERS
FOUNDATION v. DECS
If it were a legislative function, the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due
process. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasijudicial function, prior notice
and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates.
CIR v. FORTUNE TOBACCO
CORP
rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceedings in order to carry into effect the law
as it has been enacted, and it cannot be extended to amend or expand the statutory requirements or to embrace matters
not covered by the statute. Administrative regulations must always be in harmony with the provisions of the law
because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be resolved in favor of the basic law.
TAXICAB OPERATORS OF
METRO MANILA v. BOT
Previous notice and hearing as elements of due process are constitutionally required for the protection of life, right, or
property when its limitation of loss takes place in consequence of a judicial or quasi- judicial proceeding.
US v. PANLILIO
A violation of the orders of the BOA is not a violation of the provision of the Act. The orders of the BOA while they may
possible be said to have the force of law, are statutes and not penal statutes, and a violation of such order is not a penal
offense unless the statute itself somewhere make a violation thereof unlawful and penalizes it.
HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION v.
DEFENSOR
1. A petition for prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail an IRR issued in the exercise of a quasilegislative
function. Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but not against legislative or quasi-legislative
functions.

2. Where a rule or regulation has a provision not expressly stated or contained in the statute being implemented,
that provision does not necessarily contradict the statute. In subordinate legislation all that is required is that
2

OF JUSTICE v. LANTION In a preliminary investigation which is an administrative investigatory proceeding. No. DE JESUS The court reviewed the IRR and found that Section 4. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION The jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies. the question should be controversial in nature and must refer to the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of election SEC. secondary. the extent of privacy interest against dossier-gathering by PSDSA v. 308 merely implements the Administrative Code. accepted as sufficient standards the following: "public interest.2 of Rule V are valid. as an incident of its power to try." "justice and equity. OF LAWYERS v. hear. OPLE v." and "simplicity. 24 There are. A school head is a person responsible for the administrative and instructional supervision of the schools or cluster of schools. a division superintendent has the authority and responsibility to hire. Such a System requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state policies — the primacy of national security. and integrated schools and learning centers. granting him the right to be furnished a copy of the complaint. may practice their profession before the Patent Office. DFA As for the sufficiency of standard test. BOARD OF POWER & WATER WORKS Respondents' complaints against being charged he additional cost of electricity for common facilities used by the tenants (in addition to those registered in their respective apartment meters) give rise to a question that is purely civil in character that is to be adjudged under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code (not the Public Service Act) and not by the respondent regulatory board which has no jurisdiction but by the regular courts.A. and decide any controversy. economy and welfare. several exceptions. TORRES It cannot be simplistically argued that A." "public convenience and welfare. including school heads. supervises the operation of all public and private elementary. GLOBE WIRELESS v. The provisions merely reiterate and implement the related provisions of R. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved. place. GUEVARRA v. COMELEC COMELEC." 25 EQUI-ASIA PLACEMENT INC.1 and 5. the 3 . however. and Sections 5. The division superintendent. Section 3.JUDICIAL POWER SYQUIA v. ABAD Publication is not necessary for interpretative regulations which Indeed. v. ASSOC. No." QUASI. publication. AGRAVA Members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice law. are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied from those granted in the legislation creating such body. for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable. 9155. may also punish for contempt. in the past. and in good standing. and evaluate all division supervisors and district supervisors as well as all employees in the division. both teaching and nonteaching personnel. PHIL. this Court had.O. as a basic postulate of procedural due process. to come under this jurisdiction. is required by law in order for administrative rules and regulations to be effective. like respondent Commission. Under the law. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court guarantees the respondent's basic due process rights. one of which are interpretative regulations which "need nothing further than their bare issuance for they give no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. and any order without or beyond such jurisdiction is void. that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law. CAWAD v. However. on the other hand.3 of Rule IV.

BERNARDO v. detract from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced. Thus. however.PDEA Finally. experience. or at least contained in the record AND disclosed to the parties affected. speedy. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally Relations personally to decide all controversies coming before them. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties. the courts cannot or will n6t determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal. where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge. Moreover. 4 . CIR (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing. CA However.. in all controversial questions. It should not. and the right to submit counter-affidavits and other supporting documents within ten days from receipt thereof. ABALOS The petitioners should have exhausted all the remedies available to them at the COMELEC level. if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise. and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. and other supporting documents. (3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should. the requirement that "[t]he decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing. INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES v. and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statue administered. INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE. relating to the form and substance of the decision of a quasi-judicial body. specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved. the last requirement." (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion. Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case. which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. namely. but the evidence must be "substantial." was not complied with JUDICIAL REVIEW ABEJO v. and adequate remedy. and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. but their report and decision are only advisory. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges. a place when directly attached. to use the authorized legal methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy.. DELA CRUZ DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION: The Court held that under the "sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction . A motion for reconsideration gives the COMELEC an opportunity to correct the error imputed to it. that of having something to support it is a nullity. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO affidavits. then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. MAGCAMIT v. further complements the hearing and decisionmaking due process rights and is similar in substance to the constitutional requirement that a decision of a court must state distinctly the facts and the law upon which it is based. it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded. must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy. and for that purpose. ANG TIBAY v." It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Rule 65 requires that there must be no plain. can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. therefore. or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. and the reasons for the decision rendered. the respondent shall have the right to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant. render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved." (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing.

to our mind. and substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. unless actually disapproved by him. nor did he appeal to the office of the President of the Philippines. CSC Hence. FACTORAN FINDING OF FACT BY ADMINISTRATIVE BODY SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. ARROW TRANSPORTATION v. (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable. that the plaintiff in the replevin suit who seeks to recover the shipment from the DENR had not exhausted the administrative remedies. too. In short. KBMPBM v DOMINGUEZ EXHAUSTION DOES NOT APPLY IN CASE OF PRESUMED APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE: As to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Records do not show that private respondent Wilfredo Hervilla ever filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Director of Lands issuing free patent over the lands in dispute in favor of petitioners' predecessor-in-interest. BOT It is essential then both from the standpoint of the firms engaged as well as of the riding public to ascertain whether or not the procedure followed in this case and very likely in others of a similar nature satisfies the procedural due process requirement. JUDGE LILAGAN Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. Hervilla failed to exhaust administrative remedies. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. (5) when there is irreparable injury. (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned. (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim. a flaw which. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO GSIS v. or mistake of law or fraud. Substantial evidence is all that is needed to support an administrative finding of fact. (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter. it is sufficient that administrative findings of fact are supported by evidence. courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence. but review is justified when there has been a denial of due process. the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to settled exceptions. (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question. as an alter ego of the President. speedy and adequate remedy. NATIONAL DEVT CO. A question of fact is best left to the determination of the administrative bodies charged with the implementation of the law they are entrusted to enforce. the rule is well-settled that this requirement does not apply where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts. It is disregarded: (1) when there is a violation of due process. (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings. HERVILLA FAILURE TO ASK FOR RECONSIDEATION OR APPEAL TO ADMINSITRATIVE SUPERIOR IS FATAL TO CAUSE OF ACTION. TABAO v. Neither did he appeal said decision to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. and (11) urgency of judicial intervention VALMONTE v. is fatal to a court review. (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. bear the implied approval of the latter. or the authority to hear and adjudge cases. BELMONTE However. v. COURT OF APPEALS EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES: However. among which is when only a question of law is involved. (10) when the rule does not provide a plain. PROS. As uniformly held by the Court. Note." Finding of fact in administrative decision should not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. should normally and logically be deemed to include the grant of authority to enforce or execute the judgments it thus renders. collusion or arbitrary action in the 5 . we are not amiss to reiterate that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies as tested by a battery of cases is not an ironclad rule. the grant to a tribunal or agency of adjudicatory power. PAAT v.

Petitioners contend that PD1818 is not applicable because ISCOF has its own charter and is not a part of the national government. EXEC. The grant is arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. it must be shown that all the administrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been exhausted. Petitioners filed a petition seeking a restraining order against the conduct of the bidding process. and it may assign NAPOLCOM hearing officers to act as legal consultants of the PLEBs. A restraining order was issued to which defendants filed a motion to lift on the basis of PD1818. COMELEC QUESTIONS INVOLVING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS PURELY LEGAL AND IS OF URGENT CHARACTER. or with grave abuse of discretion. v. The circumstances emphasized are squarely applicable with the present case. the Commission exercises appellate jurisdiction. DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. However. thru the regional appellate boards. speedy. over decisions of both the PLEB and the said mayors. SINSUAT AXIOMS GOVERNING JUDICIAL REVIEW BY CERTIORARI: first. or capriciousness is manifest. Petitioners submitted their pre-qualification documents. and that Guillermo Roxas and/or MJBFS' right to possess and operate the restaurant was the subject of a pending litigation. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS WHEN DUE PROCESS IS DISREGARDED. or when a grave abuse of discretion. petitioners allege that the assailed issuances violated their right to freedom of expression and the principle of separation of church and state. arbitrariness. where the procedure which led to factual findings is irregular. or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Second. it is the Commission which shall issue the implementing guidelines and procedures to be adopted by the PLEB for in the conduct of its hearings. INDUSTRIAL POWER SALES v. Pursuant to the Act. This is a purely legal question. 6 . that before said actions may be entertained in the courts of justice. IAC EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES NOT REQUIRED IN CASE OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION. exhaustion of administrative remedies must be done before court’s jurisdiction may be invoked. Public respondents undeniably had knowledge prior to the issuance of the license to Guillermo Roxas and/or MJBFS that the subject restaurant was owned by petitioner and presently leased to Valley Resort Corporation. SECRETARY NAPOLCOM RETAINS POWER OF CONTROL DESPITE THE CREATION OF PLEB. an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs is not in reality a plain. The Notice announced that the last day of submission of the prequalification bids was 2 Dec 1988. and second. In such case. Furthermore. the same is not necessary if there is an utter disregard of the principle of due process. they were not allowed to participate on the ground that they passed the requirements late (beyond 10am cut off time). when palpable errors are committed. PENACHOS FACTS: Iloilo State College of Fisheries caused the publication of an invitation to bid for the construction of a Micro Lab Bldg. Respondents contend that PD1818 prohibits any court to issue any restraining order against project of the government. that the administrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the administrative official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES IS NOT NECESSARY. This is so under Section 20(c). ROXAS INC v. EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES IS NOT REQUIRED. While as a rule. CARPIO v. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO administrative proceeding. HEIRS OF EUGENIA V. the circumstances of the present case indicate the urgency of judicial intervention considering the issue then on the RH Law as well as the upcoming election DIGEST GENERAL CONSIDERATION: MALAGA v. First. NATIONAL DEVT CO.

no valid objection can be made. what is involved is noncompliance with procedural rules on bidding which requires strict observance. the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased to hold office. and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. ISSUE: Is there removal from office by virtue of a reorganization law? (No) RULING: Valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of the incumbents. As to its effect. Petitioner contends that the provisions of BP 129 which abolish some inferior courts collide with the security of tenure of incumbent judges and justices. ALBA VALID ABOLITION OF OFFICE IS NEITHER REMOVAL NOR SEPARATION OF INCUMBENTS FROM OFFICE. After the abolition. And. enforcement. PD 1818 is not applicable since the prohibition from issuing restraining orders contemplates an administrative body’s exercise of discretion in technical cases only and does not apply to questions of law. In this case. which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be. not integrated within the department framework. ISSUE: Is there an undue delegation of legislative power? RULING: It is not a delegation of the power to legislate but merely a conferment of authority or discretion as to its execution. chartered institutions. for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished.” Petitioner contends that this power is an undue delegation of legislative power. if the abolition is void. ISSUE: Is ISCOF a government instrumentality? (Yes) Is it protected by the prohibition under PD 1818? (No) RULING: ISCOF is a government instrumentality. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD CONFERMENT OF AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE LAW IS NOT A DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. and implementation. and government-owned or controlled corporations. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law. the effect is one of separation. the abolition must be made in good faith. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO RTC lifted the order prompting petitioner to file a petition with the SC. There can be no tenure to a nonexistent office. DE LA LLANA v. to the latter. In case of removal." Removal is to be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the office. vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law. He ceases to be a member of the judiciary. "The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law. and enjoying operational autonomy. The abolition of an office does not amount to an illegal removal of its incumbent is the principle that. there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. administering special funds. the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. endowed with some if not all corporate powers. of course. usually through a charter. Nonetheless. FACTS: Petitioner assails the constitutionality of PD 1987 creating the Videogram Regulatory Board was promulgated. This term includes regulatory agencies. GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY DEFINED: Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government. The assailed law among others empower the VRB to "solicit the direct assistance of other agencies and units of the government and deputize. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. The first cannot be done. in order to be valid." 7 . for a fixed and limited period. there is in law no occupant. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: TIO v. Realistically. the heads or personnel of such agencies and units to perform enforcement functions for the Board.. no distinction exists between removal and the abolition of the office. FACTS: Petitioner filed a case for declaratory relief with the SC assailing the constitutionality of BP 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act. it is devoid of significance.. However. .

and even corruption. The Order also provides that the carabao or carabeef transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the government. to be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit. and to make the sale of rice in violation of the price of rice. The RTC sustained the confiscation which was affirmed the CA prompting petitioner to appeal to SC. and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines. it is a law in all its details in presenti. it amended EO 626 to the effect that it also prohibited inter-provincial movement of carabao (not just carabeef). He was found guilty by the lower court prompting petitioner to appeal to the SC. and speculation in. rice or corn. but which may be left to take effect in futuro. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse. The law also defines what constitute a monopoly or hoarding but does not specify the price or defined any basis for fixing the price. the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make their distribution." or what was "an extraordinary rise in the price of rice. Should the eventuality occur. There is none. Without that proclamation. ISSUE: Is the standard may see fit sufficient to be a valid delegation of legislative power? (No) RULING: No." in short. 2868. was issued by Pres.S. they and they alone may choose the grantee as they see fit. It is an invalid delegation of legislative power because they are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of properties arbitrarily taken. U. and in their own exclusive discretion. upon the ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event. in form and substance. IAC A ROVING COMMISSION WHICH GRANTS UNLIMITED DISCRETION IS AN INVALID DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER FACTS: Petitioner transported 6 carabaos in a pum boat from Masbate to Iloilo. the aggrieved parties will not be without adequate remedy in law. Definitely. there is here a "roving commission. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO Besides. in all its terms and provisions. In gist. and nothing must be left to the judgement of delegate of the legislature. or better still. The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition." That the grant of such authority might be the source of graft and corruption would not stigmatize the DECREE as unconstitutional. a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers. the Gov-Gen issue a proclamation fixing the price for the sale of rice. in the very language of the decree. ANG TANG HO A LAW WHICH DELEGATES THE POWER TO FIX PRICE WITHOUT ANY STANDARD IS AN INVALID DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. if condition it is. The controversy began when a Petitioner was charged with sale of rice at an excessive price. in the case of carabaos. The Legislature did not specify or define what was "any cause. 2868 is analyzed. In the absence of the proclamation no crime was committed. is unconstitutional and void. ISSUE: Is there a valid delegation of legislative power to the Executive? (No) RULING: The law must be complete. so that. When Act No. Who shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall they be chosen? Only the officers named can supply the answer." Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon which the proclamation should be issued. and to make the sale of rice in violation of the proclamation a crime. palay. it is the violation of the proclamation of the GovernorGeneral which constitutes the crime. palay or corn. fixing the price of rice. 2868 was passed which authorized the Gov-Gen to issue necessary rules to prevent the monopoly and hoarding of. if necessary. the authority of the BOARD to solicit such assistance is for a "fixed and limited period" with the deputized agencies concerned being "subject to the direction and control of the BOARD. Marcos in the exercise of his legislative power. They were confiscated by the station commander of Barotac for violation of EO 626-A. 8 . when it leaves the legislative branch of the government. YNOT v." a wide and sweeping authority that is not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing. Act No. in so far as it undertakes to authorized the Governor-General in his discretion to issue a proclamation. EO 626-A. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. FACTS: Act No. it was no crime to sell rice at any price. Their options are apparently boundless. v. Thereafter. inter alia. in the case of carabeef.

Secretary of Education.. to repeat. it issued a Cease and Desist Order against Caloocan City to desist from dumping any form of garbage. CHR CHR IS NOT EMPOWERED TO ADJUDICATE. subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. to decide. settle or decree. Corazon C. it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand. Following an investigation conducted by LLDA. This prompted respondents to file a complaint with the CHR. Aquino decided to bar the return of Marcos and his family. Considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the government was still threatened and unstable and the economy was just beginning to rise and move forward." and "adjudge" means: "To pass on judicially." LLDA v. Caloocan filed with the RTC an action for the declaration of nullity of the C&D Order. or to sentence or condemn. Aquino was then declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. 9 . Fact finding is not adjudication. ISSUE: Is LLDA authorized to issue a Cease and Desist Order absent an express provision in its charter? (Yes) RULING: LLDA as a specialized administrative agency is mandated to pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans proposed by LGU within the region etc. Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest sense. Petitioner. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO MARCOS v. Budoy. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. finally and definitively. i. or even a quasi-judicial agency or official.. as steward of the people. LLDA then filed a petition for certiorari with the SC which remanded the same to CA. and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice. To be considered such. MANGLAPUS EXERCISE OF PRESIDENT’S RESIDUAL POWER IS NOT AN UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER FACTS: In February 1986. CA ruled that RTC had no jurisdiction to try and hear LLDA’s C&D Order and that LLDA has no power to issue a C&D Order. CHR denied the motion to dismiss prompting Carino to file a petition with the SC. ISSUE: Is the CHR empowered to adjudicate on controversies? (No) RULING: The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate. Carino promulgated a decision dismissing Esber from service and suspension for Babaran.’ ISSUE: Is the President empowered to prohibit the return of Marcos in the country despite the absence of an express power to do so under the Constitution? (Yes) RULING: It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. "Adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively. RTC decided in favor of Caloocan City. This function. The private respondents were administratively charged. implies a judicial determination of a fact.e. and the entry of a judgment. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. Marcos signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. and Del Castillo. COURT OF APPEALS POWER TO ISSUE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER BY LLDA IS AN IMPLIED POWER GRANTED BY ITS CHARTER FACTS: Task Force Camarin Dumpsite filed a lettercomplaint with the LLDA seeking to stop the operation of the open garbage dumpsite due to its harmful effects. the Commission does not have. IT IS ONLY EMPOWERED TO INVESTIGATE FACTS: Several teachers including private respondents in this case undertook a mass concerted actions on a Monday (class day) as a response to the alleged failure of the authorities to act upon their grievances. receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt. It exercises a quasi-judicial function. It is founded on the duty of the President. former President Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people power" revolution and was forced into exile. CARINO v. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. Pending determination of motion to dismiss.. intervened and moved that the complaint be dismissed. To determine finally.

the restriction and banning of trawl fishing from all Philippine waters come. of 10 . Otherwise. Under the Fisheries Law. The CFI declared the assailed orders as invalid. it may well be reduced to a "toothless" paper agency. NLRC ADMINISTRATIVE RULES ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT BY COURTS FACTS: Private Respondent Coria was initially hired as a casual employee and eventually promoted to Inspector of the Fire Division by Rizal Empire. The focal point of the case is the provision under NLRC Rules which provides that no motion or request for extension to perfect an appeal shall be entertained. the prohibition provided in the act constitutes unlawful delegation of the legislative powers. The Labor Arbiter order his reinstatement. the authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is. FACTS: President issued an EO prohibiting the use of trawls in San Miguel Bay. It is contended that EO expanded the Fisheries Law. perforce. and are entitled to great respect. to be exercised under and in pursuance of law. No objection can be made. The true distinction between the delegation of power to make the law. have the force of law. the latter no valid objection can be made. A group of Otter Trawl Operators filed a declaratory relief with the CFI. RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE CO. Coria filed a complaint with the Labor Dept. THE FISHERIES LAW IS COMPLETE SO AS TO EMPOWER THE SEC TO PROHIBIT TRAWLING. implied. thus the EO cannot prohibit what the law does not prohibit. Among others. and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution. QUASI.LEGISLATIVE POWER: CRUZ v. v. which involves a discretion as to what it shall be. ISSUE: Is the power to suspend the application of the law at his discretion a valid delegation of legislative power? (Yes) RULING: The delegation is an authority as to the execution of the law. under the law. They contend that trawl fishing is not expressly prohibited by the law. Sometime thereafter. the Sec. it is likewise a settled rule that an administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers. Petitioner appealed to NLRC which dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same had been filed out of time. who in compliance with his duties may even cause the criminal prosecution of those who violate his instructions. GATMAITAN A REGULATION IS VALID IF THE LAW IS COMPLETE. ISSUE: May the court allow the appeal contrary to the rules promulgated by an administrative body? (No) RULING: It is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce. it contends that the power given by Act No 3155 to the Governor. In the exercise of its express powers under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. ISSUE: Did the EO expand the law where the law does not expressly prohibit trawling? (No) Is there a valid delegation of legislative power? (Yes) RULING: Even without the Executive Order. NOT UNDUE DELEGATION FACTS: Petitioner sought that Act No. ARANETA v. 3155 prohibiting the importation of cattle from foreign countries into the Philippines be declared as unconstitutional. within the powers of the Secretary of Agriculture. The first cannot be done. YOUNGBERG DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE LAW IS VALID. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law. at his discretion.General to suspend or not. They also contend that the law unduly delegated the legislative power. he was dismissed from work on the grounds of tardiness and unexcused absences. CamSur.

if the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete. The Legislature cannot delegate legislative power to enact any law. BAUTISTA v. 869. 39. ISSUE: Did the MC unduly expand the law when it imposed a penalti of impounding? 11 . The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is an exception to the non-delegation of legislative. if not impossible. Hence. and cancellation of registration on owners of the above-specified vehicles such letter of instruction. MACERAN THE LAW MUST EXPRESSLY PENALIZE ELECTROFISHING. reespondent Juinio issued Memorandum Circular No. issued in response to the protracted oil crisis. pursuant thereto. JUINIO. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO Agriculture is authorized to promulgate rules restricting the use of any fish net or fishing device for the protection of fry or fish eggs. is unconstitutional and void. and for the third offense. FACTS: Letter of Instruction No. powers. that of cancellation of certificate of registration and for the rest of the year or for ninety days whichever is longer. RAMOS PENALTY IMPOSED IN A REGULATION MUST BE REFLECTED IN THE LAW ITSELF. including electrofishing as a prohibited act) RULING: Administrative agents are clothed with rulemaking powers because the lawmaking body finds it impracticable. 84-1 which penalizes electro fishing in fresh water fisheries. fine. because the law itself does not expressly punish electro fishing. this appeal to the SC. the CFI affirmed the dismissal. PEOPLE v. It is to be noted that Memorandum Circular No. the basic law prevails because said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. ISSUE: Did the administrative order expand the Fisheries Law? (Yes. There is no delegation of power and it is valid. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes. In the instant case the regulation penalizing electro fishing is not strictly in accordance with the Fisheries Law. 39 does not impose the penalty of confiscation but merely that of impounding. the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations. OTHERWISE. The law likewise authorizes the Secretary to create refuges and sanctuaries for fishes. and it does nothing more than to authorize the delegate to make rules and regulations to carry it into effect. hence the executive and judicial departments cannot consider the same. Administrative regulations or "subordinate legislation calculated to promote the public interest are necessary because of "the growing complexity of modem life. On the other hand. ANY REGULATION DOING SO IS INVALID FACTS: The respondents were charged with violating Fisheries Administrative Order No. The municipal court quashed the complaint and held that the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing. which imposed penalties of fine. the doing of which is vested in the delegate." In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law. and the increased difficulty of administering the law. of Agriculture the promulgation of rules and regulations to carry into effect the legislative intent. the act is delegation of legislative power. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. Note that the fisheries law was amended. EDU. This was promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law and the law creating the Fisheries Commission. If the law is a law unto itself. to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be encountered in enforcing the law. The memorandum is being assailed as unconstitutional for being violative of the doctrine of undue delegation of legislative power. and some legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime. On appeal. under which the regulation was issued. leaving to the Sec. Insofar as the protection of fish fry or fish egg is concerned the law is complete in itself. then the Legislature created the law. impounding of vehicle.

and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. and Sports issued an order authorizing the 15 to 20% increase in school fees. By such regulations. No lesser administrative executive office or agency then can. in light of the recommendation submitted by the Task Force on Private Higher Education created by the DECS. they may partake of a legislative character. PHIL. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. then its function is quasijudicial in character. 39 would be ultra vires. based upon a finding of fact. FACTS: 12 . FORTUNE TOBACCO CORP DISCREPANCY BETWEEN REGULATION AND LAW WILL RENDER THE FORMER VOID. So long. seeking that judgment be rendered declaring the questioned Department Order unconstitutional on the ground that the Department Order is issued without legal basis. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO RULING: The regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. assert for itself a more extensive prerogative." While the imposition of a fine or the suspension of registration under the conditions therein set forth is valid under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. CONSUMERS FOUNDATION v. Where the rules and the rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party. the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due process. It must likewise be made clear that a penalty even if warranted can only be imposed in accordance with the procedure required by law. When the rules and/or rates laid down by an administrative agency are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country. so the DECS issued DO No. they are valid Administrative interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory. CIR v. prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates. of course. Petitioner filed an instant petition for prohibition. contrary to the express language of the Constitution. as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasijudicial function. Petitioner urged the president to suspend its implementation but he obtained no response. to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the petitioner opposed the increases. DECS NOTICE AND HEARING NOT MANDATORY IN THE EXERCISE OF QUASI LEGISLATIVE POWER FACTS: The Department of Education. 37 lowering the ceiling of 10 to 15% increase. for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. WHEN NOTICE AND HEARING MANDATORY: The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a legislative or an adjudicative function. To apply that portion of Memorandum Circular No. ISSUE: Is there a need for a prior notice and hearing in the application of new rates for tuition fee hike for all private schools? (No) RULING: QUASI JUDICIAL VS QUASI LEGISLATIVE. Culture. in whom all executive power resides. If it were a legislative function. however. the law itself cannot be extended. the impounding of a vehicle finds no statutory justification.' It cannot be otherwise as the Constitution limits the authority of the President. Despite the reduction. The petitioner sought reconsideration arguing that the increase is too high.

as amended. R. BOT AN ORDER IN THE EXERCISE OF QUASI LEGISLATIVE POWER NEED NOT COMPLY WITH PRIOR NOTICE AND HEARING FACTS: Petitioner Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila. 2000. shall be increased by twelve percent (12%) on January 1. 17-99. To implement the provisions for a twelve percent (12%) increase of excise tax on. On February 7. (TOMMI) is a domestic corporation composed of taxicab operators. granted and ordered CIR to refund the same. Revenue Regulation No. 77-42. 17-99 effectively imposes a tax which is the higher amount between the ad valorem tax being paid at the end of the three (3)-year transition period and the specific tax under paragraph C. Conversely. 1997. 77-42 which provides for the phasing out old and dilapidated taxis.410. pertinent provisions of which are quoted thus: The rates of excise tax on cigars and cigarettes under paragraphs (1). Respondent Board of Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular No. the mentioned cigarette brands were subject to ad valorem tax pursuant to then Section 142 of the Tax Code of 1977. dated December 16. 1997. taxi units with year models over six (6) years old are now banned from operating as public utilities in Metro Manila.A. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. Fortune filed with respondent’s Appellate Division a claim for refund or tax credit of its purportedly overpaid excise tax for the month of January 2000 in the amount of P35. right. on January 1. the Secretary of Finance. upon recommendation of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 13 . ISSUE: Is there a need for prior notice in the promulgation of an administrative regulation? (No) RULING: Previous notice and hearing as elements of due process are constitutionally required for the protection of life. Pursuant to BOT Memo-Circular No. 145 of the Tax Code of 1997. and it cannot be extended to amend or expand the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. no prior hearing is required. No.judicial proceeding.00. 2000. However. they also contend that they were not given the opportunity to be heard. issued Revenue Regulations No. who are grantees of Certificates of Public Convenience. 1999 For the period covering January 1-31. ISSUE: RULING: The Supreme Court have previously declared. petitioner allegedly paid specific taxes on all brands manufactured and removed in the total amounts of P585. Administrative regulations must always be in harmony with the provisions of the law because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be resolved in favor of the basic law. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO Immediately prior to January 1. US v. TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA v. 8240 took effect whereby a shift from the ad valorem tax (AVT) system to the specific tax system was made and subjecting the aforesaid cigarette brands to specific tax under [S]ection 142 thereof. The accused contends that the facts alleged in the information and proved on the trial do not constitute a violation of law. 2000. or property when its limitation of loss takes place in consequence of a judicial or quasi. rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceedings in order to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. since the assailed order was made pursuant to quasi-legislative powers. By adding the qualification that the tax due after the 12% increase becomes effective shall not be lower than the tax actually paid prior to 1 January 2000. (2) (3) and (4) hereof.651.00.705.250. as increased by 12%—a situation not supported by the plain wording of Section 145 of the Tax Code. 2000.. PANLILIO THE PENAL LAW MUST EXPRESSLY STATE THAT VIOLATION OF ORDERS OF DELEGATE WILL ALSO AMOUNT TO A CRIME FACTS: Accused was convicted of violation of Acr 1760 re quarantine of animals suffering contagious disease. among others. sub- paragraph (1)-(4). cigars and cigarettes packed by machines by January 1. now renumbered as Sec. Petitioners take the position that fixing the ceiling at six (6) years is arbitrary and oppressive because the roadworthiness of taxicabs depends upon their kind of maintenance. Inc.

formulate guidelines and policies. petitioners remedy is an ordinary action for its nullification. the NGC Administration Committee formulated the IRR of said law.A. In subordinate legislation all that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law. That the adoption of the assailed IRR suffers from a procedural flaw. The orders of the BOA while they may possible be said to have the force of law. the Committee is granted the power to administer. TORRES PRESIDENT MAY NOT ENACT A LAW THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OTHERWISE HE WILL ENCROACH UPON CONGRESS’ LEGISLATIVE POWER FACTS: Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate Administrative Order No. 14 . No. No. not is there a penalty for its violation. Petitioners contends: 1. that provision does not necessarily contradict the statute..2 (a. among others. A petition for prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail an IRR issued in the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. but not against legislative or quasi-legislative functions. and implement the disposition of the areas covered by the law. 2. 1 In Section 5 of R. petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with the SC. DEFENSOR FACTS: Pursuant to RA 9207 aka National Government Center Housing and Land Utilization Act of 2003. ISSUE: Is prohibition a proper remedy to assail a body’s exercise of quasi-legislative power? RULING: 3. m. In case of a delegation of ratefixing power. HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION v. the case does not fall within any of them. an action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions.1) of the IRR fixes the selling rate of a lot at P700. OPLE v. Where a rule or regulation has a provision not expressly stated or contained in the statute being implemented. The law expressly provides for acts which shall be prohibited or unlawful. 9207 does not provide for the price. In assailing the provisions of the law. are statutes and not penal statutes. that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law. 9207. OSG contends that the petition for prohibition filed by petitioners is an improper remedy because a writ of prohibition does not lie against the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" on important constitutional grounds. the only standard which the legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and just. That while Sec. 1 Implicit in this authority and the statutes objective of urban poor housing is the power of the Committee to formulate the manner by which the reserved property may be allocated to the The Committees authority to fix the selling price of the lots may be likened to the rate-fixing power of administrative agencies. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO ISSUE: Can accused be penalized for the order of the Bureau of Agriculture? (No) RULING: Nowhere in the law is the violation of the orders of the BOA prohibited or made unlawful. Where the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR. and a violation of such order is not a penal offense unless the statute itself somewhere make a violation thereof unlawful and penalizes it.00 per sq. R.A. viz: it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate. A violation of the orders of the BOA is not a violation of the provision of the Act. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. 3.

DBM-DOH Joint Circular No.A. 308 merely implements the Administrative Code. the Committee is mandated to fill in the details such as the qualifications of beneficiaries. filed the instant petition for prohibition and mandamus. DBM-CSC Joint Circular No. Series of 2012. the choice of policies. The division superintendent. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. 4 authorizing the President of the Philippines to Modify the Compensation and Position Classification System of Civilian Personnel and the Base Pay Schedule of Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government. 1. the DepEd Secretary is mandated to “promulgate the implementing rules and regulations within ninety (90) days after the approval of the Act. ISSUE: Did AO308 encroached upon the legislative power of Congress? (Yes) RULING: An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. PSDSA v. including school heads. Thereafter. provided that the principle of shared governance shall be fully implemented within two (2) years” after such approval. 2003. No. Under the law.O. In a letter9 addressed to respondents Secretary of Budget and Management and Secretary of Health. Under Section 14 of the law. Subsequently. Shortly thereafter respondents DBM and DOH then circulated the other assailed issuance. ABAD PUBLICATION NOT NECESSARY FOR INTERPRETATIVE REGULATIONS WHERE NOTHING IS NO CHANGE IN THE LAW FACTS: RA 7305 aka Magna Carta of Public Health Workers was signed into law. Congress issued Joint Resolution No. and evaluate all division supervisors and district supervisors as well as all employees in the conditions governing the sale and other key particulars necessary to implement the objective of the law. 1. No. the selling price of the lots. division. 9155. in behalf of its officers and members. etc. A school head is a person responsible for the administrative and instructional supervision of the schools or cluster of schools.3 of Rule IV.800 public school district supervisors of the DepEd. On March 13. the national organization of about 1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. and Sections 5. 9155.1 and 5. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO Petitioner claims that AO 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law and hence beyond the power of the President to issue. 2001. The provisions merely reiterate and implement the related provisions of R. and for other Purposes. 2 to prescribe the rules on the grant of Step Increments due to meritorious performance and Step Increment due to length of service. otherwise known as the “Governance of Basic Education Act 2001. Article VI of the Constitution. CAWAD v. a division superintendent has the authority and responsibility to hire. place. respondents DBM and CSC issued one of the two assailed issuances. petitioners expressed their opposition to the Joint Circular cited above on the ground that the same diminishes the benefits granted by the Magna Carta to PHWs. Such a System requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state policies — the primacy of national security.” became a law on August 11. and integrated schools and learning centers. the terms and It cannot be simplistically argued that A. it provided that "an official or employee authorized to be granted Longevity Pay under an existing law is not eligible for the grant of Step Increment due to length of service. DE JESUS FACTS: Republic Act No." 15 . ISSUE: RULING: The court reviewed the IRR and found that Section 4. in accordance with Section 27(1). secondary. the extent of privacy interest against dossier-gathering by government. supervises the operation of all public and private elementary.2 of Rule V are valid. Under this broad power. on the other hand. both teaching and non-teaching personnel. Series of 20122. the PSDSA. beneficiaries. alleging that the implementing regulation is inconsistent with the intent and letter of the law.

while in South Korea. The letter cited Secs. Razon died of acute cardiac arrest while asleep at the dormitory of Samsung Textile. v." "public convenience and welfare. Pertinent communications were made with the appropriate government agencies." That the concerned government agencies opted to demand the performance of said responsibility solely upon petitioner does not make said directives invalid as the law plainly obliges a local placement agency such as herein petitioner to bear the burden of repatriating the remains of a deceased OFW with or without recourse to the principal abroad." "justice and equity. jurisprudence as well as the circumstances of this case dictate otherwise." 4 3 In this case. EQUI-ASIA PLACEMENT INC. this Court had. 7305 and its Revised IRR." and "simplicity. such duty is imposed upon him as the statute clearly dictates that "the repatriation of remains and transport of the personal belongings of a deceased worker and all costs attendant thereto shall be borne by the principal and/or the local agency. Petitioner declined to follow the directive on the ground that the deceased violated his employment contract when he unlawfully escaped from the company assigned to him. ISSUE: Is there an unlawful expansion of the law? (No) RULING: While Republic Act No. publication. Neither is prior hearing or consultation mandatory. FACTS: Petitioner Equi-Asia recruited and deployed Manny Razon and was sent to South Korea. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO Petitioners contend that the DBM-DOH Joint Circular is null and void for its failure to comply with Section 35 23 of RA No. In this regard. nevertheless. imposing upon it the primary obligation to repatriate the remains of the deceased Razon including the duty to advance the cost of the plane fare for the transport of Razon's remains. by ordering it to do so without prior determination of the existence of employeremployee relationship between itself and Razon. is required by law in order for administrative rules and regulations to be effective. OSG contends that Sec.ONAR is necessarily immaterial to its validity because in view of the pronouncements above. and the entitlement to longevity pay on the 4 Nor do we see any reason to stamp Section 53 of the Omnibus Rules as invalid for allegedly contravening Section 15 of the law which states that a placement agency shall not be responsible for a worker's repatriation should the termination of the employer-employee relationship be due to the fault of the OFW. such as the DBM-DOH circular herein. as well as its failure to file a copy of the same with the University of the Philippines Law Center-Office of the National Administrative Register (UP Law CenterONAR). the validity of which is undisputed. and second. Consequently." 25 These regulations need not be published for they add nothing to the law and do not affect substantial rights of any person. one of which are interpretative regulations which "need nothing further than their bare issuance for they give no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. the DBM-DOH Joint Circular in question gives no real consequence more than what the law itself had already prescribed. 3 basis of PHW's status in the plantilla of regular positions were already prescribed and authorized by pre-existing law. POEA sent a telegram-directive to Equi-Asia. the statute merely states the general principle that in case the severance of the 16 . as a basic postulate of procedural due process. 8042 itself permits the situation wherein a local recruitment agency can be held exclusively responsible for the repatriation of a deceased OFW. petitioner is impugning the subject provisions of the Omnibus Rules for allegedly expanding the scope of Section 15 of Republic Act No. however. 8042 by: first. CA dismissed the petition. 7305 providing that its implementing rules shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in a newspaper of general circulation. ordering petitioner to provide Prepaid Ticket Advice (PTA) for the repatriation of the remains and belongings of deceased Razon. economy and welfare. we see no reason to invalidate Section 52 of the omnibus rules as Republic Act No. need not be published nor filed with the UP Law Center . amend nor supplant the Revised IRR. To our mind. The Joint Circular did not modify. DFA A REGULATION IS VALID AS LONG AS THE LAW PROVIDED SUFFICIENT STANDARD.ONAR in order to be effective. As for the sufficiency of standard test. several exceptions. the rates of P50 and P25 subsistence allowance. 15 of RA 8042 leaves no doubt that a recruitment agency shall bear the primary responsibility and that the requirement of prior notice and hearing are not essential. 24 There are. Another letter-directive was sent to petitioner. accepted as sufficient standards the following: "public interest. Thereafter. There is really no new obligation or duty imposed by the subject circular for it merely reiterated those embodied in RA No. ISSUE: Is publication necessary for interpretative regulation? (No) RULING: Publication is not necessary for interpretative regulations which Indeed. the qualification of actual exposure to danger for the PHW's entitlement to hazard pay. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. whether it was duly published and filed with the UP Law Center . in the past. 8042 does not expressly state that petitioner shall be primarily obligated to transport back here to the Philippines the remains of the deceased Razon. As previously discussed. interpretative regulations. 52 to 55 of the IRR of RA 8042 aka Migrant Workers Act of 1995.

and any order without or beyond such jurisdiction is void and ineffective. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO employment was because of the OFW's own undoing. Respondents' complaints against being charged he additional cost of electricity for common facilities used by the tenants (in addition to those registered in their respective apartment meters) give rise to a question that is purely civil in character that is to be adjudged under the applicable possible time lest he remains stranded in a foreign land during the whole time that recruitment agency contests its liability for repatriation. This prompted petitioner to file an appeal to the SC. like respondent Commission. The jurisdiction of the respondent is provided in Sec. The jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies. PSC ordered petitioner to pay a fine and refund the sum for the undelivered message. are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied from those granted in the legislation creating such body. AGRAVA A LAWYER NEED NOT PASS ANOTHER EXAMINATION TO PRACTICE BEFORE QUASI-JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS FACTS: 17 . 8042. As such determination would most likely take some time. certainly does not preclude a placement agency from establishing the circumstances surrounding an OFW's dismissal from service in an appropriate proceeding. BOARD OF POWER & WATER WORKS BOARD OF POWER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE ON MATTER PURELY CIVIL IN CHARACTER FACTS: Private respondents (tenants) filed a complaint with respondent charging petitioner (administrator of apartment) with the offense of selling electricity without permit. 5: The Public Service Commission is hereby given jurisdiction over the grantee only with respect to the rates which the grantee may charge the public subject to international commitments made or adhered to by the Republic of the Philippines. ISSUE: Does the Commission have the power to decide on the imputed negligence of petitioner? (No) RULING: The alleged negligence of Globe is not within the ambit of PCA’s jurisdiction which is limited to the RATES WHICH THE GRANTEE MAY CHARGE. provisions of the Civil Code (not the Public Service Act) and not by the respondent regulatory board which has no jurisdiction but by the regular courts of general jurisdiction. however. Petitioner question PSC’s jurisdiction.JUDICIAL POWER SYQUIA v. Respondents contend that petitioner billed them for the electricity consumption on the common areas of the apartment administered by petitioner. GLOBE WIRELESS v. it is only fair that he or she should shoulder the costs of his or her homecoming. OF LAWYERS v. however. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION QUASI JUDICIAL BODY TASKED WITH POWER TO ADJUDICATE RATES DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO RULE ON NEGLIGENCE FACTS: Private respondent Arnaiz filed a complaint with PSA against petitioner following an incident wherein the message supposed to be transmitted to Madrid Spain did not reach the addressee. ISSUE: Does the Board have jurisdiction to rule on the conditions of lease between the landlord and the tenant? (No) RULING: Respondent board acquired no jurisdiction over petitioner's contractual relations with respondents-complainants as her tenants. it is only proper that an OFW be brought back here in our country at the soonest QUASI. denied the motion. ASSOC. Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. PHIL. Petitioner moved for dismissal on the ground that the Board has no jurisdiction. since petitioner is not engaged in a public service nor in the sale of electricity without permit or franchise. Section 15 of Republic Act No.

Such being the case. GUEVARRA v. to come under this jurisdiction. The notice and hearing requirements of administrative due process cannot be dispensed with. Such is the incident which gave rise to the contempt case before us In this case. for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable. it did not exercise any judicial function. The requisitioning and preparation of the necessary ballot boxes to be used in the elections is an imperative ministerial duty. is already qualified to practice before the Patents Office. Inquisitorial power. so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions are. may also punish for contempt. Petitioner argues that COMELEC has no jurisdiction to punish as contempt said publication. RTC ruled in favor of Jimenez and ordered that the status quo be maintained. Pending evaluation of the extradition documents by DOJ. it could not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated in the law. and (c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved. hear. is one or the determinative powers of an administrative body which better enables 18 . Petitioner filed this petition contending that those who passed the bar examinations etc.” This impelled COMELEC to summon petitioner to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt for influencing the COMELEC in the adjudication of the controversy. ISSUE: Is a lawyer required to undergo another examination to practice before quasi-judicial bodies? (No) RULING: Members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice law. for such power is inherently judicial in nature. it only discharged a ministerial duty. LANTION EVALUATION STAGE OF EXTRADITION PROCEEDING IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING. the question should be controversial in nature and must refer to the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of election. However. Petitioner denied the request on the ground that it was premature and that it is only when the petition is filed in court will the copies of the petition be furnished by the court. a quasi-judicial proceeding involves: (a) taking and evaluation of evidence. Following COMELEC’s denial of ACME’s 3rd Motion for Reconsideration. SEC. taken to the Supreme Court. which is also known as examining or investigatory power. ISSUE: May COMELEC issue contempt order in the exercise of its ministerial duties? (No) RULING: COMELEC. However. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO Agrava is the Director of the Patents Office. DUE PROCESS IS OBSERVED. petitioner published in the Sunday Times an article entitled “Ballot Boxes Contract Hit. as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved. as an incident of its power to try. and decide any controversy. may practice their profession before the Patent Office. private respondent requested copies of the official extradition request. and in good standing. He issued a circular scheduling an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorney before the Patent Office. that part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial. SOJ filed the instant petition to the SC. under the law. ISSUE: May a possible extradite request for paper and hearing during the evaluation stage of an extradition proceeding with the DOJ? (Yes) RULING: The Evaluation Stage sets in motion the extradition proceeding and is akin to an investigation proceeding. NASSCO and ASIATIC. COMELEC QUASI JUDICIAL BODIES MAY NOT PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS MINISTERIAL DUTIES FACTS: COMELEC initially awarded the manufacturing of ballot boxes to ACME. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. In administrative law. COMELEC withdrew the award to ACME for failure to sign the contract and awarded its portion to the two others. FACTS: DOJ received from the DFA a US Note Varbale requesting for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the US. (b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented. Jimenez filed with the RTC a petition for mandamus to compel petitioner to furnish the extradition documents and a prohibition to enjoin the SOJ from filing the extradition petition in court. OF JUSTICE v.

therefore. it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should. detract from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced. but the evidence must be "substantial.PDEA 19 . The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it. CIR ruled in favor of ANG TIBAY. that of having something to support it is a nullity. organizing. and analyzing evidence." (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion. or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. and if the agency is not authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties. to use the authorized legal methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy. render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved. The proceedings in the CIR did not comply with the Cardinal Principles of Due Process in Administrative Proceedings. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges. Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case. and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. Hence. NLU prays for the vacation of the first judgment of the SC and prays for a new trial. in all controversial questions. namely. which is a useful aid or tool in an administrative agency's performance of its rule-making or quasi-judicial functions. Section 3. a place when directly attached. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. and the reasons for the decision rendered. the respondent shall have the right to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant. (3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right. ISSUE: Is there a need for a new trial? (Yes) RULING: A new trial is necessary. the affidavits. CIR A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY MUST SUPPORT ITS DECISION WITH FACTUAL BASIS UPON WHICH TO PREDICATE A CONCLUSION OF LAW FACTS: A complaint was filed against Toribio Teodoro and ANG TIBAY by National Labor Union for unfair labor practice with the Court of Industrial Relations. which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. but their report and decision are only advisory. investigation is indispensable to prosecution. and other supporting documents. The Court laid down the test of determining whether an administrative body is exercising judicial functions or merely investigatory functions: Adjudication signifies the exercise of power and authority to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties before it. In a preliminary investigation which is an administrative investigatory proceeding." (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing. must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO it to exercise its quasi-judicial authority The power of investigation consists in gathering. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally Relations personally to decide all controversies coming before them. then there is an absence of judicial discretion and judgment. and the right to submit counter-affidavits and other supporting documents within ten days from receipt thereof. if the only purpose for investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted before it based on the facts and circumstances presented to it. can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. It should not. granting him the right to be furnished a copy of the complaint. however. The record is barren and does not satisfy the need for a factual basis upon which to predicate a conclusion of law. INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court guarantees the respondent's basic due process rights." It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Moreover. and for that purpose. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. Notably. ANG TIBAY v. Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties. (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing. MAGCAMIT v.

PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO FAILURE TO DISCLOSE TO THE PARTIES EVIDENCE USED AS BASIS VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT IN ADMINSITRATIVE PROCEEDINGS FACTS: An anonymous complaint was filed against petitioner et.. and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. They were charged with Grave Misconduct for alleged extortion done to the mother of the anonymous complainant. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION: The Court held that under the "sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction . Bragas contends that it is the civil court that has jurisdiction. they were dismissed. COMELEC conducted an investigation. prompting him to appeal to CSC which also denied his appeal. or associates inter alia. JUDICIAL REVIEW ABEJO v. and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered " BERNARDO v. ISSUE: Which tribunal has jurisdiction over dispute between stockholders? (SEC) RULING: The law provides that SEC shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving controversies arising out of intracorporate or partnership relations.12 Finally. Such dispute clearly involves disputes between and among stockholders. further complements the hearing and decision-making due process rights and is similar in substance to the constitutional requirement that a decision of a court must state distinctly the facts and the law upon which it is based. the last requirement. ISSUE: Did the proceedings in the IAS-PDEA comply with the cardinal principles of due process? RULING: Citing Ang Tibay v CIR: The first of the enumerated rights pertains to the substantive rights of a party at the hearing stage of the proceedings. The same was denied. Asserting that the Bragas claim a preemptive right over the 133. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. as the decision maker decides on the evidence presented during the hearing. Abejos contend that the SEC has jurisdiction. The CA likewise denied his appeal and affirmed the dismissal from service. Meanwhile. fourth.11 These standards set forth the guiding considerations in deliberating on the case and are the material and substantial components of decision making. Petitioner filed a MR with the IASPDEA where he raised the fact that his name never came up in the sworn statements submitted to the hearing officer. Petitioner immediately filed a petition for certiorari with the SC on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC En Banck dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence." was not complied with. This trigerred several actions. members. Abejos sold its minority shares to Telectronic Systems including some shares registered in the name of Bragas (majority stockholders) which results in Telectronic becoming the majority stockholder at 56%. between and among stockholders. The complaint of Bargas for annulment of sales and transfer questions the validity of transfer claiming alleged pre-emptive rights. the courts cannot or will n6t determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.10 The second. al.. 20 . the requirement that "[t]he decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing. or at least contained in the record AND disclosed to the parties affected. the corporate secretary refused to register the aforesaid transfer of shares. where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge. Accordingly. experience. DELA CRUZ DISPUTES BETWEEN STOCKHOLDERS IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE AND ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF SEC FACTS: This stemmed from a dispute between principal stock holders of Pocket Bell Ph. relating to the form and substance of the decision of a quasi-judicial body. Magcamit was not properly apprised of the evidence presented against him. ABALOS PETITIONERS MUST EXHAUST ALL REMEDIES IN QUASI-JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS FACTS: A complaint was filed against respondents with COMELEC for vote buying. which evidence were eventually made the bases of the decision finding him guilty of grave misconduct and recommending his dismissal. third. Special Investigator Enriquez recommended their dismissal. and sixth aspects of the Ang Tibay requirements are reinforcements of the right to a hearing and are the inviolable rights applicable at the deliberative stage. Thus.000 shares of Abejo. fifth.

ISSUE: May the CSC execute its judgment and resolutions? (Yes) RULING: CSC is a constitutional commission. under a regulatory scheme. The ME with respect to back wages was granted by CSC despite the opposition of GSIS. 5 of them appealed to the Merits System Board which found the dismissal to be illegal due to lack of formal charges and opportunity to answer. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO The COMELEC Rules provide that as a general rule Motion for Reconsideration is a prohibited pleading except in cases of election offense cases. In the SC. the appeal was also dismissed but it modified the CSC resolution ordering that the payment of back salaries to the employees be eliminated pending the outcome of the proceedings in the GSIS. if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. the heirs of the employees filed a motion for execution. ISSUE: Which tribunal has jurisdiction over cases involving energy resources? RULING: The Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case. which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. as such it has the authority to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases originally instituted or on appeal. CSC POWER TO EXECUTE IS INCLUDED IN THE GRANT F ADJUDICATORY POWER FACTS: GSIS dismissed 6 employees for being notoriously undesirable. It applies "where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts. CSC also denied the appeal. and adequate remedy. Thereafter. speedy. This prompted petitioner to appeal to SC. CA reversed the RTC decision and held that RTC had no jurisdiction over the action since BED has the power to decide on the issue. When the decision of the SC became final. GSIS appealed to the SC contending the CSC has no power to execute its judgment and final orders aside from the allegation that the execution of CSC is contrary to the resolution of the court. Corollary to such power is the authority to promulgate rules concerning practice before it. 2 of the concerned employees passed away. and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which. CA BED HAS EXCLUSIVE AND ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING ENERGY FACTS: Petitioner was granted a coal operating contract by Bureau of Energy Development. GSIS v. The controversy began when petitioner filed an action for rescission of the MOA before the RTC. However. It also exercises quasi-judicial powers. INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES v. ISSUE: Is the petition valid? RULING: The petitioners should have exhausted all the remedies available to them at the COMELEC level. A motion for reconsideration gives the COMELEC an opportunity to correct the error imputed to it. RTC ordered the rescission of the MOA. have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. in such case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view" The question of what coal areas should be exploited and developed and which entity should be granted coal operating contracts over said areas involves a technical determination by the BED as the administrative agency in possession of the specialized expertise to act on the matter. it executed a MOA with MMIC whereby it assigned to MMIC all its rights and interest. Rule 65 requires that there must be no plain. specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved. then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. This is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. 21 .

PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO The CSC rules provide that decision in administrative disciplinary cases shall be immediately executory UNLESS a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. however. EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES: However. Tthe authority to decide cases is inutile unless accompanied by the authority to see that what has been decided is carried out. private respondents instituted a civil action for replevin with the RTC. The same was appealed to the CA which also dismissed the appeal. 22 . It is no less true to state that the courts of justice for reasons of comity and convenience will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and to dispose of the case. the grant to a tribunal or agency of adjudicatory power. if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before court's judicial power can be sought. (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question. (10) when the rule does not provide a plain. speedy and adequate remedy. denied the motion. There is no violation of due process because respondents were given opportunity to be heard. The order was appealed to the Regional Director which affirmed the confiscation. (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable. it is a precondition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. for one thing. (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. of DENR. An order of confiscation was issued by the CENRO officer. Hence. (5) when there is irreparable injury. RATIONALE BEHIND EXHAUSTION: This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without its practical and legal reasons. should normally and logically be deemed to include the grant of authority to enforce or execute the judgments it thus renders. unless the law otherwise provides. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of the principle of exhaustion of remedies. The exceptions to the principle of exhaustion does not come into play. ISSUE: May a court entertain a civil action for replevin pending an administrative proceeding concerning the same property? (No) RULING: The invocation of court’s jurisdiction without exhausting all administrative remedies renders the action premature. There is neither lack of authority to seize. (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings. DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES: Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court. Pending appeal to the Sec. COURT OF APPEALS A REPLEVIN PENDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING VIOLATES THE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES FACTS: Private respondent’s truck was seized by DENR personnel due because of the unexplained forest products concealed in the truck. RTC. (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim. or the authority to hear and adjudge cases. (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter. Hence. we are not amiss to reiterate that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies as tested by a battery of cases is not an ironclad rule. the laws expressly and broadly give DENR officers the power to seize and confiscate. It is disregarded: (1) when there is a violation of due process. PAAT v.

MANGUBAT v. Respondent judge issued a writ of replevin. OSMENA FACTS: PROS. inter alia. too. Private respondent Sultan Rent-a-Car applied for the same certificate. Without the required publication. NBI agents found the documents irregular thus the cargo. Thereafter. the public respondent (BOT) issued a provisional permit to operate such service. JUDGE LILAGAN AN ACTION FOR REPLEVIN MUST BE DISMISSED PENDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE PROPERTY FACTS: M/L Hadija docked at Tacloban where it intended to unload 100 tons of tanbark. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The courts for reasons of law. The consignee filed with RTC a case for replevin. he is expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress available under the law. the boat and the cargo trucks were seized and impounded. Manager Belmonte requesting for the list of names of opposition members who were able to secure a clean loan of 2M on guaranty of Mrs. TABAO v. complainant also directed the seizure of the aforementioned properties pending preliminary investigation (an administrative proceeding). hence no cause of action. that the plaintiff in the replevin suit who seeks to recover the shipment from the DENR had not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him. Petitioner invokes the Right to Information under the Constitution. allegations would have been sufficient to alert respondent judge that the DENR has custody of the seized items and that administrative proceedings may have already been commenced concerning the shipment. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO VALMONTE v. BELMONTE A QUESTION INVOLVING THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS PURELY LEGAL AND NEED NO EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES FACTS: Valmonet wrote to GSIS Gen. BOT ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES NEED NOT BE EXHAUSTED IF THERE IS AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS FACTS: Petitioner is a holder of a certificate of public convenience for a line from Cebu City to Mactan International Airport. the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to settled exceptions. courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence. among which is when only a question of law is involved. ISSUE: Is exhaustion of remedies necessary in cases of purely legal question? (No) RULING: Before a party can be allowed to resort to the courts. This prompted petitioner to file a petition with the SC. is one which can be passed upon by the regular courts more competently than the GSIS or its Board of Trustees. However. This. 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 the errors committed in the administrative forum. An criminal complaint was also filed against the appropriate parties. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. Note. The counsel of GSIS denied the request on the ground that the list is confidential. Marcos. ISSUE: May a judge issue a writ of replevin pending a preliminary investigation? (No) RULING: The complaint for replevin itself states that the shipment of tanbark as well as the vessel on which it was loaded were seized by the NBI for verification of supporting documents. Respondent opposes on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust the remedies when it did not seek a review from the Board of the GSIS. 23 . ARROW TRANSPORTATION v. which requires the interpretation of the scope of the constitutional right to information. The issue raised by petitioners.

as in the instant case. Moreover.) RULING: The action of respondent became moot and academic when the BOL issued title to petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest. the rule is well-settled that this requirement does not apply where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts. a flaw which. Thus its ripeness for adjudication becomes apparent. The RTC ruled in favor of NDC. recourse to the courts could be had immediately. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. unless actually disapproved by him. ISSUE: Is there a need for petitioner to appeal to the President before invoking court’s jurisdiction? RULING: As to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Bureau of Lands issued free patents in favor of NDC’s predecessor-in-interest. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. NATIONAL DEVT CO. NDC. Hervilla failed to exhaust administrative remedies. nor did he appeal to the office of the President of the Philippines. CA reversed the decision. ISSUE: May the court nullify a title issued by an administrative body pending proceeding in said court? (No) May court interfere with the decision of the Director of Land? (No. Without waiting for its final resolution. KBMPBM v DOMINGUEZ THERE IS NO NEED TO APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT FOR DECISIONS MADE BY A QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENT SUCH AS THE SECRETARY FACTS: Petitioner and Muntinlupa entered into a contract granting the former the management and operation of the New Muntinlupa public market. is fatal to a court review. to our mind. Bunye claims that petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies. This prompted the petitioner to file a petition with the SC alleging that the respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. petitioner filed an action with the SC on the ground that only a legal question was involved. In short. not only because of the importance of the issue raised but also because of the strong public interest in having the matter settled. such as when the question involved is purely legal. the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies also yields to other exceptions. arbitrary or oppressive. bear the implied approval of the latter. HERVILLA COURT MAY NOT NULLIFY A TITLE GRANTED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN COURT FACTS: Hervillla filed an action for recovery of possession against Dole Philippines involving several parcels of land in possession of Dole Philippines as administrator of the petitioner. 24 . Records do not show that private respondent Wilfredo Hervilla ever filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Director of Lands issuing free patent over the lands in dispute in favor of petitioners' predecessor-in-interest. ISSUE: Is the petition ripe for judicial determination absent a resolution on the MR? RULING: Ordinarily. On appeal to the SC. This doctrine of qualified political agency ensures speedy access to the courts when most needed. Prior thereto. an objection grounded on prematurity can be raised. petitioner contends that the finding of the BOL must bind the court and the court cannot declare the title issued as null and void. It is essential then both from the standpoint of the firms engaged as well as of the riding public to ascertain whether or not the procedure followed in this case and very likely in others of a similar nature satisfies the procedural due process requirement. or where the questioned act is patently illegal. v. There was no need then to appeal the decision to the office of the President. however. The controversy began when an order was served upon petitioners. The order was made by the respondent Secretary of Agriculture. When a new mayor assumed office. as an alter ego of the President. he declared that the Municipality was taking over the management and operation of the market. This Court was impelled to go into the merits of the controversy at this stage. an MR’s resolution should be awaited. Pending CA proceedings. Neither did he appeal said decision to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

EXEC. that was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned. or mistake of law or fraud. and receive additional evidence. over decisions of both the PLEB and the said mayors. where the procedure which led to factual findings is irregular. Guillermo Roxas doing business under the name MJB Food and Services obtained a license from the DOT to operate the restaurant at the Hidden Valley Springs Resort. and it may assign NAPOLCOM hearing officers to act as legal consultants of the PLEBs. HEIRS OF EUGENIA V. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO The decision of the Director of Lands has now become final. The Minister of Natural Resources reversed the decision and ruled in favor of Atlas. ISSUE: Is the decision of the Director of Mines supported by substantial evidence? (Yes) RULING: A question of fact is best left to the determination of the administrative bodies charged with the implementation of the law they are entrusted to enforce. or capriciousness is manifest. arbitrariness. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. the Deputy Executive Secretary reversed the decision and reinstated the decision of the Mines and Geo Science. but review is justified when there has been a denial of due process. when palpable errors are committed. it is sufficient that administrative findings of fact are supported by evidence. FACTORAN FINDING OF FACTS BY ADMNISTRATIVE BODIES SHOULD NOT BE DISTRUBED IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FACTS: A dispute began between Atlas Consolidated and Private respondent Buqueron regarding the registration of mining claims. Among others. The Courts may no longer interfere with such decision. In reviewing administrative decisions. the Commission exercises appellate jurisdiction. The Director of Mines ruled in favor of private respondent. the reviewing Court cannot re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence as if originally instituted therein. it is the Commission which shall issue the implementing guidelines and procedures to be adopted by the PLEB for in the conduct of its hearings. Furthermore. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. 25 . and municipality would all the more help professionalize the police force. During the pendency of the proceeding. IAC ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES NEED NOT BE EXHAUSTED IN CASE TRIBUNAL ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION FACTS: A protracted litigation ensued between petitioner corporation and Guillermo Luis Roxas over the ownership of Hidden Valley Springs Resort. As a disciplinary board primarily created to hear and decide citizen's complaints against erring officers and members of the PNP." Finding of fact in administrative decision should not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. the findings of fact in this case must be respected. Substantial evidence is all that is needed to support an administrative finding of fact. petitioner contends that the grant of disciplinary powers over PNP members to the People’s Law Enforcement Boards (PLEB) and city and municipal mayors derogates the NAPOLCOM’s power of control over the PNP. collusion or arbitrary action in the administrative proceeding. ISSUE: Is the law unconstitutional? RULING: Pursuant to the Act. thru the regional appellate boards. As uniformly held by the Court. SECRETARY THE NAPOLCOM RETAINS CONTROL OVER THE PNP MEMBERS DESPITE THE CREATION OF PLEB FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of RA 6975 which established the PNP under the DILG. A petition for an adverse claim was filed by petitioner against private respondent due to overlapping mining claims. or when a grave abuse of discretion. CARPIO v. On further appeal to the Office of the President. ROXAS INC v. the establishment of PLEBs in every city. and substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This is so under Section 20(c).

is the owner of a steamship which was apprehended by the Collector of Customs due to the alleged violation of customs law. The invitation was subsequently amended. leases. DELTA protested the award on the ground that they were not factory built. unless actually disapproved. these being: (1) where the issue is purely a legal one. and second. Petitioner and another bidder DELTA participated in the process. SINSUAT ADMINISTRATIVES REMEDIES NEED NO BE EXHAUSTED IF THE BODY WAS IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION FACTS: Bureau of Supply advertised Invitations to Bid calling for 8 trucks which are factory-built. or (4) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.) RULING: It is a recognized principle that courts of justice will generally not interfere in executive and administrative matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. It was awarded to IPSI. or the approval. (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was done without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. (3) where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the latter's implied or assumed approval. Public respondents undeniably had knowledge prior to the issuance of the license to Guillermo Roxas and/or MJBFS that the subject restaurant was owned by petitioner and presently leased to Valley Resort Corporation. The grant is arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CFI. Petitioner contends that the public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the license contrary to the rules and regulations concerning the operations of resorts in the country. v. ISSUE: Can an administrative body issue license. It also disregarded the law conferring preferential status to locally manufactured supplies. NATIONAL DEVT CO. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President. INDUSTRIAL POWER SALES v. The controversy began when the Collector of Customs imposed a fine of PHP 5. A correspondence ensued between plaintiff and defendant. AXIOMS GOVERNING JUDICIAL REVIEW BY CERTIORARI: first. the grant of licenses. that before said actions may be entertained in the courts of justice. respondent Secretary totally disregarded that fact the DELTA was in estoppel when it participated in the bidding despite knowledge of the alleged fault in petitioner’s bid. ISSUE: Did the Secretary acted in excess of jurisdiction thereby excluding the case from the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies? RULING: There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies when the office from which appeal is taken acted in excess of jurisdiction.000 on the vessel and ordered its payment otherwise the vessel will be detained. Pending appeal. 26 . and that Guillermo Roxas and/or MJBFS' right to possess and operate the restaurant was the subject of a pending litigation. permits. or with grave abuse of discretion. There are however exceptions to the principle known as exhaustion of administrative remedies. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO This prompted petitioner to file a petition for certiorari with the SC. of General Services which ruled in favor of DELTA. such as. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THERE IS NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS FACTS: National Devt Co. rejection or revocation of applications therefor. Respondent contends that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The dispute reached the Sec. that the administrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the administrative official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. In this case. pending litigation concerning the ownership of the subject of the license? (No. this time including local manufactured trucks. it must be shown that all the administrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been exhausted. Respondent contends that was not required to submit a contract of lease.

issued a letter ordering its immediate removal otherwise an election protest will be filed. PASCASIO CARLO ANGELO CABRITO This prompted plaintiff to file a petition for certiorari with the CFI on the ground that there was neither an investigation nor hearing conducted by the defendant. 27 . Second. speedy. First. Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution. COMELELC Law Dept. DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. Defendant argued that plaintiff failed to exhaust all remedies (appeal to the Commissioner of Customs). ISSUE: Is there a need to exhaust administrative remedies when no investigation or hearing was conducted by the administrative body prior an imposition of fine? (No) RULING: Even in administrative proceeding due process should be observed. exhaustion of administrative remedies must be done before court’s jurisdiction may be invoked. Thus. Respondents contend that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with the COMELEC Rules. an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs is not in reality a plain. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ATTY. or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. COMELEC CASE INVOLVING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS A PURELY LEGAL QUESTION. Moreover. THERE IS NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES FACTS: Pursuant to a COMELEC resolution limiting the size of election posters. In such case. the circumstances of the present case indicate the urgency of judicial intervention considering the issue then on the RH Law as well as the upcoming elections. it is a settled rule that exhaustion is not necessary when what is involved is purely legal question or there is an urgency of judicial intervention. While as a rule. This is a purely legal question. ISSUE: Is there a need to exhaust remedies in case of alleged violation of a constitutional right? (No) RULING: The principle of exhaustion of remedies yields in order to protect the fundamental right of free speech. CFI ruled in favor of NDC. the same is not necessary if there is an utter disregard of the principle of due process. respondent acted improvidently. to require the exhaustion of administrative remedies in this case would be unreasonable. Election Officer wrote to the Diocese of Bacolod concerning their Team Patay/ Buhay poster allegedly in excess of the limit imposed by the resolution. petitioners allege that the assailed issuances violated their right to freedom of expression and the principle of separation of church and state. The circumstances emphasized are squarely applicable with the present case. petitioners initiated a petition for certiorari with the SC. By imposing a fine without exercising due process (investigation and hearing).