JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review may embrace any form of judicial scrutiny of a matter which arises when such
action is brought into question before a court.
Accordingly, one basic approach to judicial review is that questions of law or validity are the
court, while questions of fact, policy, or discretion are determinable by the administrative
agency.
Policy of the courts- it is the policy of the courts not to interfere with the actions of government
agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under their special knowledge and
training or specific field of expertise unless there is a clear showing of capricious and whimisical
exercise of judgement or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
considering that by their nature and functions they are in the best position to know the limits of
their powers under prevailing circumstances or situations.
Right to judicial review has reference both to the power and right of the court to grant the
review sought and the right in the person who invokes the power of the court.
Appeal is of a statutory origin; it is not a requirement of due process. The fact, however, that a
statute does not provide for judicial relief or review does not mean that there is no power or right
of relief or review in a proper case under the general powers and jurisdiction of the courts.
Where administrative decision has become final and executory- the rule of res judicata which
forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies as
well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of administrative officers and boards acting within
their jurisdiction as to the judgements of courts having general judicial powers.
There is res judicata when the following requisites are present:
 Final order or judgement
 Jurisdiction of the court (or agency) over the subject matter and the parties and
 Identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of cause of action.
Where administrative decisions declared final and unappealable by statute they are still subject to
judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness.
Where question or issue raised for the first time on appeal- No question will be entertained on
appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below.
Rules governing appeals from judgments of quasi-judicial agencies
Among these agencies are:
 Civil Service Commission
 Central Board of Assessment appeals
 Securities and Exchange commission
 Land Registration Authority
 Social Security Commission
  Office of the president
 Civil Aeronautics board
 National Telecommunications commission
 DAR
 GSIS
 Employees’ compensation Commission
 Agricultural inventions board
 Insurance Commission
 Agricultural Energy Commission
 Board of Investments
 Construction industry arbitration commission

Where to appeal – An appeal may be taken to the CA within the period and in the manner
provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and
law.
Period of appeal - The appeal shall be taking within 15 days from notice of the award,
judgement, final order or resolution or from the date of its last publication, if publication is
require by law for its effectivity or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration duly
filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one motion for
reconsideration shall be allow
How appeal taken – It shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in 7 legible copies
with the CA, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or
agency a quo.
Contents of the petition are following:
 State the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies
either as petitioners or respondents
 Contain concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon
for the review
 Accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award,
judgement, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of
such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other supporting papers;
 State all the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the reglementary
period provided herein; and
 Contain a sworn certificate against forum shopping
Failure to comply with requirements shall be sufficient grounds for the dismissal thereof.
Contents of comment – within 10 days from notice in 7 legible copies and accompanied by
clearly legible certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein
together with other supporting papers. It shall point out insufficiencies or inaccuracies in
petitioner’s statement of facts and issues and state the reasons why the petition should be denied
or dismissed. A copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner and proof of such service shall be
filed with the CA
Effect of appeal- the appeal shall not stay the award, judgement, final order or resolution sought
to be reviewed unless the court of appeals shall direct otherwise upon such term as it may deem
just.
The above rules do not apply to judgements and final orders or resolutions issued under the
Labor Code
Administrative findings and constructions generally conclusive
Factual basis and sufficiency of evidence – the reviewing court cannot re-examine or weigh once
more the factual basis and sufficiency of the evidence submitted before the administrative body
and substitute its own judgement for that of said body or to receive additional evidence that was
not submitted to the administrative agency concerned.
Standard of proof: substantial evidence is all that is needed to support an administrative finding
of fact.
Administrative constructions – The same weight and respect is accorded on the constructions
given by an administrative agency to the law which it is entrusted to enforce. While they are not
necessarily binding upon the courts, they can only be set aside on proof of lack of jurisdiction,
gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law.
If the administrative finding of facts are not supported by substantial evidence, the same are not
binding on courts
When judicial review proper – judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave
abuse of discretion, error of law or collusion
Finality of administrative action for purposes of review
Policy of courts – Courts are reluctant to interfere with action of administrative agency prior to
its completion or finality, the reason being that absent a final order or decision, power has not
been fully and finally exercised, and there can usually be no irreparable harm.It is only after
judicial review is no longer premature that a court may ascertain in proper cases where the
administrative action or findings are not in violation of law, or are free from fraud or imposition
or find substantial support from evidence
Order or decision – Statutes relating to judicial review of action of an administrative agency
commonly provide for review of “order”, “any order”, “ final order”, “final agency action” or
“final decision”
A particular order or determination may be held not subject to review because it does not
constitute an “order” or “decision” or because it does not meet other requirements specifically
laid down in in the statute providing for review. Thus, review may be denied as to mere
pronouncement or recommendation not acted upon
The mere informality of a decision does not prevent its review if it is otherwise final. Thus, a
letter may constitute an appealable order or determination. “Findings” may constitute a
reviewable “order” where further proceedings have been ordered discontinued.”
Pendency of rehearing or administrative appeal- The pendency of an application for a rehearing
or recommendation filed within the time prescribed by law or regulations deprives the original
order of finality. However, a statute may provide otherwise
Purely administrative matters- it is well- recognized principle that purely administrative and
discretionary functions may not be interfered by the courts.
In general, courts have no supervising power over the proceedings and actions of the
administrative departments of the government. This is general true with respect to acts involving
the exercise of discretion and findings of facts except where the agency or official has gone
beyond its or his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers, or clearly acted
arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion.
Preliminary, procedural and interlocutory determinations – The universal rule is that appeal to
the courts will not lie from an interlocutory order unless such order affects the merits.
An order is not final but interlocutory when the substantial rights of the parties involved in the
action remain undetermined and when the case retained for further action.
Example of orders falling under this kind of determinations are:
 Orders directing an investigation and inquiry, appointing a conservator or conciliator,
providing for a hearing and requiring corporations under investigation to apper and
present certain data;
 Denial of motion to change place or hearing
 Denial of application for a stay
 Approval or disapproval of a compromise agreement
 Denial of application for rehearing and
 And order of an administrative appellate tribunal reversing and remanding a case to the
hearing officer to take further testimony
But certiorari is available against administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions
where the order is interlocutory or not where due process was not followed.
EXCEPTIONS TO DOCTRINE OF FINALITY.
The requirement of finality is subject to exceptions and limitations which permit judicial relief
for review at an initial or intermediate stage of the administrative action.Thus, the fact that a
particular determination is not a “Final order” for purposes of statutory review has been held not
to preclude the availability of judicial review:
 To an interlocutory order affecting the merits of a controversy
 To grant relief to preserve the status quo pending further action by the administrative
agency
  When it is essential to the protection of rights asserted from the injury threatened
 Where an administrative officer assumes to act in violation of the constitution and other
laws
 Where such order is not reviewable in any other way and the complainant will suffer
great and obvious damage if the order is carried out and
 To an order made in excess of power, contrary to specific prohibition in the statute
governing the agency and thus operating as a deprivation of a right assured by the statute

CASES
Rogerio R. Olaguer vs. Eufemio Domingo
G.R. No. 109666, June 20, 2001
DOCTRINE: Petitioners were the officers directly charged with the power of processing,
reviewing and evaluating CMP loan documents, where the AMAKO Project was deemed included
(community mortgage purposes). In its exercise of the power to process, review, and evaluate CMP
loan applications, petitioners had the power to compel submission of documentary requirements
such as the Lease Purchase Agreement (LPA) and the reproduction of the Affidavit of Income of
Beneficiaries. They also had the power to conduct surveys and ocular inspection on the property.
However, they were remiss of their obligations to do so. As instructed by the NHMFC President
to conduct such activities, Olaguer did not send anyone to verify the lack of a road right of way
and other characteristics essential to the viability of the project.  Notably, despite non-compliance
with the requirements, AMAKO’s application was approved by APED in a span of only 3 days.
PD 1445 (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines), Sec. 103 states that “Expenditures of
government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a
personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefore.” NOTE:
Nothing was specifically mentioned about judicial review.

Alfredo Malabaguio vs. COMELEC and Mirali Mendoza-Durr

J. Ynares-Santiago, ponente
 Petitioner and private respondent were both candidates for the position of Punong Barangay in
Barangay 172, Kalookan City. Private respondent was proclaimed as the duly
elected Punong Barangay.  The petitioner filed an election protest case with the MTC.  The rendered a
judgment declaring the petitioner as the winner.  Private respondent filed a case with the COMELEC.
The 2nd Division set aside the MTC’s decision, and declared the private respondent as the winner. A
Motion for Reconsideration was filed, but was denied by the COMELEC en banc.  The petitioner now
questions the disregarding of the 57 ballots cast in favor of petitioner which do not bear the signatures
of the chairmen of the board of election inspectors, considering that private respondent won by only 54
votes over petitioner.

Issue(s)/Ruling(s)
1. Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in invalidating 57 ballots cast in favor
of Malabguio which do not bear the signature of the chairman of the Board of Inspectors?

In invalidating the 57 ballots, the COMELEC relied on several laws which basically said that the signatures
of the particular authorities are needed to validate the ballots.  However, the SC ruled that “It is correct to
postulate that administrative findings of facts are accorded great respect, and even finality when supported
by substantial evidence. Nevertheless, when it can be shown that administrative bodies
grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, this Court has not
hesitated to reverse their factual findings. Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and
will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness.”

The COMELEC has already promulgated a new set of rules which states that the failure to authenticate the
ballots shall not invalidate them. Rather, the Board of Election Inspectors shall merely note such failure in
the minutes and declare the failure to authenticate the ballots as an election offense.  “Consequently, the
absence of the Chairmen's signature at the back of the ballot should not be a reason to invalidate the 57
ballots which are genuine. Hence, all votes indicated in these ballots must be counted in favor of the
petitioner because the intent of the voters to vote for him is crystal.”

It is conceded that by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of an administrative agency like the
COMELEC over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment
thereon. Thus, their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded great respect, if not finality by the
courts.[14] It bears emphasis, however, that even decisions of administrative agencies which are declared
final by law are not exempt from judicial review when so warranted.[15] Factual findings of administrative
agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness,[16] or upon proof of
gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.[17]
While courts generally will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of
government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical
knowledge and training of such agencies, this Court, however, stressed in Ruby Industrial Corporation v.
Court of Appeals[18]that:

The settled doctrine is that factual findings of an administrative agency are accorded respect and at times
finality for they have acquired the expertise and inasmuch as their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters.[19] Nonetheless, these doctrines do not apply when the board or official has gone beyond his
statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily without regard to his duty
or with grave abuse of discretion.[20] In Leongson vs. Court of Appeals,[21] we held: once the actuation of
the administrative official or administrative board or agency is tainted by a failure to abide by the command
of the law, then it is incumbent on the courts of justice to set matters right, with this Tribunal having the
last say on the matter.

Matienza vs Abellera

FACTS: Petitioners and private respondents are all authorized taxicab operators in Metro Manila.
Respondents however, admittedly operate “colorum” or “kabit” taxicab units. Theprivate respondents filed
their petition with respondent Board for the legalization of their unauthorized “excess” taxicab units citing
PD 101, which eradicates the harmful and unlawful trade of clandestine operators, by replacing or allowing
them to become legitimate and responsible operations. Within a matter of days,the respondent Board
promulgated its orders settling the applications for hearing and granting applications applicants provisional
authority to operate their excess taxicab units for which legalization was sought. Thus, the present petition.
The petitioners allege that the BOT acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the petitions for
legalization and awarding special permits to private respondents.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Board of Transportation has the power to legalize, at this time, clandestine
and unlawful taxicab operations.

HELD: Justifying its action on private respondent’s applications, the respondent Board emphasizes public
need as the overriding concern. It is argued that under PD 101, it is fixed policy of the State to eradicate
the harmful and unlawful trade of clandestine operators by replacing or allowing them to become
legitimate and responsible ones. In view thereof, it is maintained that respondent Board may continue
to grant to “colorum” operators the benefit of legalization under PD 101, despitethe lapse of its power,
after six months, to do so, without taking punitive measures against the said operators.
Indeed, a reading of Section 1, PD 101, shows a grant of powers to the respondent Board to issue
provisional permits as a step towards the legalization of colorum taxicab operations without the alleged
time limitation. There is nothing in Section 4, cited by the petitioners, to suggest the expiration of such
powers six months after promulgation of the Decree. Rather, it merely provides for the withdrawal of
the State’s waiver of its right to punish said colorum operators for their illegal acts. In other words, the
cited section declares when the period of moratorium suspending the relentless drive to eliminate illegal
operators shall end. Clearly, there is no impediment to the Board’s exercise of jurisdiction under its
broad powers under Public Service Act to issue certificates of public convenience to achieve the avowed
purpose of PD 101.
It is a settled principle of law that in determining whether a board or commission has a certain power,
the authority given should be liberally construed in light of the purposes for which it was created, and
that which is incidentally necessary to a full implementation of the legislative intent should be upheld as
being germane to the law. Necessarily, too, where the end is required, the appropriate means are
deemed given.
Wherefore the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. The questioned orders of the Board of
Transportation are affirmed.

Macailing Vs Andrada

Facts: There was a dispute over four parcel of lands located in Lebak, Cotabato between two arties wherein
the petitioners Rafael Macailing et Al claiming a bigger parcel sale of the said lot.They instituted an action
to the district land officer of Cotabato where in the said officer ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.Macailing et
al, the director of lands however reversed the ruling and ruled in favor of the defendant andrada. An
appeal have been instituted to the secretary of agriculture and natural resources has become final and
executory and that the office has no more jurisdiction ovet the matter. The defendants havinf read the
decision they sought to file again an appeal to the office of the president. The office of the president
through asst.exec. Quema has reversed the decision of the SANR. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE:W/n the decision of the Office of the President was valid despite the finality of the
decision of the SANR.

Held: In the matter of judicial review of administrative decisions, some statutes especially provide for such
judicial review; others are silent. Mere silence, however, does not necessarily imply that judicial review is
unavailable. Modes of judicial review vary according to the statutes; appeal, petition for review or a writ
of certiorari .No general rule applies to all the various administrative agencies. Where the law stands mute,
the accepted view is that the extraordinary remedies in the Rules of Court are still available.
 
Therefore, the plaintiffs' appropriate remedy is certiorari , not an ordinary civil action.Although in
injunctive or prohibitory writs, courts must have jurisdiction over the Corporation, Board, Officer or person
whose acts are in question and not the jurisdiction over the SM of the case, the doctrines invoked in support
of the theory of non-jurisdiction areinapplicable. Here the sole point in issue is whether the decision of the
respondent public officers was legally correct or not, and, without going into the merits of the case, we see
no cogent reason why this power of judicial review should be confined to the courts of first instance of the
locality where the offices of respondents are maintained, to the exclusion of the courts offirst instance in
those localities where the plaintiffs reside, and where the questioned decisions are
being enforced."The provisions of Lands Administrative Order No. 6 are thus brought to the fore.
Section 12 thereof provides:12. Finality of decision promulgated by the Secretary The decision of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce (now Agriculture and Natural Resources) or the Under Secretary
on an appealed case shall become final, unless otherwise specifically stated therein, after the lapse of thirty
(30) days from the date of its receipt bythe interested parties.

Section 13 following reads:

No reconsideration of final decision or order  After a decision or order of the Secretary of Agriculture and
[Natural Resources], the Under Secretary or the Director of Lands has become final, no motion or petition
for reconsideration of such decision or reinvestigation of the case shall be entertained by the Secretary of
 Agriculture and [Natural Resources] the Under Secretary or the Director of Lands, as the case may be,
except as provided in Section 14 hereof. And Section 14 is to this effect:
"Upon such terms as may be considered just, the Secretary of Agriculture and [Natural Resources], the
Under Secretary or the Director of Lands may relieve a party or his legal representative from a decision,
order, or other proceeding taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, default or
excusable neglect: Provided , That application therefor be made within a reasonable time but in no case
exceeding one (1) year after such decision, order or proceeding was taken.

Jose vs Arroyo L-78435

(Full text cannot be found. These are just citations from the case Mendoza vs Quisumbing G.R.
No. 78053 )
Facts: Petitioners assail the unsigned resolution dated August 11, 1987. It cited to justify the
termination without cause of the services of the officers and employees involved in the instant
cases. The Solicitor General argues that the usual invocation of the right to security of tenure is
precluded by the constitutional provision.
The contention of petitioner that Executive Order No. 127 is violative of the provision of the 1987
Constitution guaranteeing career civil service employees security of tenure overlooks the
provisions of Section 16, Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) which explicitly authorize the
removal of career civil service employees "not for cause but as a result of the reorganization
pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 and the reorganization following the
ratification of this Constitution." By virtue of said provision, the reorganization of the Bureau of
Customs under Executive Order No. 127 may continue even after the ratification of the
Constitution, and career civil service employees may be separated from the service without cause
as a result of such reorganization.
Issue: W/N the unsigned resolutions are considered to be unconstitutional
Ruling: No.  Such case is obiter dictum because Leonardo Jose's petition was "clearly premature,
speculative, and purely anticipatory." There was no reorganization yet.  It involves an unsigned
resolution where the nuances of the Court's pronouncements cannot possibly be ventilated as in a
full-blown decision. Thus the Court has declared the validity of Executive Order No. 127 under
the transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution;

NOTE: We apply the principle earlier stated that the case of Jose v. Arroyo, supra has been
superseded by the Palma-Fernandez v. de la Paz (supra) and the Dario v. Mison (supra) cases to
the effect that after February 2, 1987 civil service eligibles in the government service enjoy the
constitutional right to security of tenure. The petitioners, therefore, can not be removed by mere
notices of termination, without due notice and hearing and not knowing the valid grounds for the
termination of their services.