Administrative law definition- embraces all laws that control or is intended to

control the administrative operations of the government

What is the aspect of administrative law that ---- the violation?
 What portion of admin law will affect the violation? For example in criminal
law, you have the RPC, special law, when you violate these, then what is
done to you? You are prosecuted. - what happens in admin law? Are you
also charged? What makes it different in criminal case?
 A private person can be charged administratively when it conspired with a
public officer.
 3 fold liability rule, when you file a case, when you file against a public
officer, dalawa ang finfile mo -criminal and administrative. When you violate a
criminal case, it can happen that a criminal case will push through but the
administrative case will not or vice versa. Halimbawa, you file a case in the
Ombudsman, ang ombudsman, hindi sila you court but they can decide on the
aspects of the case. When you violate a criminal law, the information will be
filed proper court- Salary Grade 27 and above, Sandiganbayan. Pag nasa
gobyerno kayo, you can be filed in 3 ways. Criminal, civil, administrative and
each is independent with each other. *if one is dismissed, it doesn't follow that
the other will also be dismissed- they can proceed, but there are also
exceptions.
 Not only with respect to violations but also the IN AND OUT OF THE
GOVERNMENT, the organizations, PD 1807 created CSC.
ASSIGNMENT: LOOK FOR AN AGENCY , what is the law creating that
agency. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
 Administrative agencies are created, they are by virtue of law. Like local govt,
public offices are also created by the legislative exception CONSTITUTION. -
The Constitutional Commision- COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHT IS NOT A
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISION but the CHR has been createdby the
Costitution, ASIDE from the 3 CONCOM (comelec, coa, csc) Office of the
Pres, NEDA is created by the Consti.
 Everything that has to do with the operation of the government form part of the
adminidtrative law.
 1. The law that created these organizations. These agencies are mandated to
impose a law like for ex. BFP, RA 6975 created BFP you are importing Fire
Code of the Phil, FCP, is also an admin law -the laws that impose in these
agencies is also an admin law. The adminstrative agencies have rule making
power or what we call quasi-legislative power- bec they seem to be making
law in a form of rule. IRR.
 CSC - quasi judicial power parang korte. Meron dn bang subpoena
power?contempt of court? To execute its decisi9n?
 In the exercise their quasi judicial power, of course they have to make
decisions. They call it resolutions. These resolutions/decision are also
administartive law. These decisions may also be appealed to the court. Thats
why there are also judicial review of administrtive decision. The sc ruling, they
also form part ofthe admin law.
 It start with the creation, they operate, they are organized, employees and
their positions and their functions, functipn of their agency, mandate of
agency- form part of administartive law.
 Non-interference of the court in relation with the decision and facts of
the case- when the agency is in the discharge of its quasi judicial power, if the
findings of the admin agency in the facts of the case is this, it is not disturb by
the courts, except if their is "grave abuse of discretion", or when there is
"culpable error"
MEANING: when you appeal it, there is a presumption of
regularity on the paet of the administrative agency rendering that
decision
 The remedy that you avail of when your rightsare violated by a public
official/employee, you avail of a provisin of administrative law, and special law
that is also part of administrative law.
 What created the local government unit? Does tye lgu have the power to hear
or to try cases? the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrat8ve Agency,
example, you protest on who was appointed, pwedeng sa csc ka
magprotesta, pwede rin sa lgu. All the proces, rules that you follow in the
exhaustion of adm8nistrative cases, is part of administrative law. Meron
kayong grievance machinery sa lgu. What are the offences that are violated
bya public official or em0loyee? The provision of Code of Ethical
Standards, RA 3019 ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
 The LGC provides that LGUs have the power to formulate its own
organizational structure and staffing pattern -these are formulated and
enacted into a law by virtue of an ordinance and must be approved by the
CSC.

 When you file administrative case, you dont say acquitted, you
say exonerated
 Can a public official be charged administrative for an act committed not
in the performance of his duty?
 The destination of public office will determine if the ombudsman have
jurisdiction?whether the sandiganbayan have jurisdiction? Whether this is an
admin case? Or a criminal case or civil.
 PUBLIC OFFICE is not the structure. We are referring to right authority and
duty because of it, you are now exercising a portion of power of the
government. You should attain the mandate of your office by doing a part.
Definition: A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and
conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or
enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested
with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested
is a public officer.
-How will you have a public office? appointment, election and contract.
 When you are holding a public office, you have a right, authority and
duty. When you are exercising these, are you limitless? You are bound
by law.
 What are check and balances that an agency do? SPMS-how can you
contribute to the attainment of the vision of your agency. Measure of the
performance of every employee.
 Ano ang bearing kung alam o ang meaning ng public office? Anong sabi sa
consti that created the csc? Art 9. What does cs embraces?
 Pag sinabing agency, kasama na chartedred, corporated, incorporated, When
an agency is covered by CSC, the csc has jurisdiction over the employment of
the agency, so if anyone commits an offense, he will be charged in the csc. If
you are a public officer, the ombudsman has jurisdiction over you.

Quimpo is covered by 1973 constitution, Khan 1987 consti. When is an

agency considered a public office and when a employee is considered a
public officer.
 Public officer - public officers included elective, appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal,
from the Government. (RA 3019)
 When you are a public officer what makes you different from somebody who is
not a public officer?
You have a portion of sovereign function and that is perform for the
benefit of the public. When you are a po, you are liable to the State- we
included the entire government and people.
 LGU is created by the legislature, in the same manner, the public office is also
created by the legislature except those created by the constitution.

Quimpo vs Tanodbayan
Khan vs Ombudsman
Violation of RA 3019- against Quimpo (related with PNOC)
Issue: w/n the PETROPHIL is a government owned or controlled corp?
Q: if it is a gocc, what is the effect of that in the jurisdiction of the tanodbayan?
A: the tanodbayan has jurisdiction
Q: how will Quimpo case be compared with Khan?
A: In the case of Khan, the government acquired PAL's controlling interest bec
of its inability to pay its loans in GSIS. No governmental functions at all were
involved. While in Quimpo case, it was aquired by the government for the sole
purpose of discharging governmental functions.
Q: how does the Phil constitution comes in?
A: Quimpo is governed by 1973 Constitution while Khan is governed by 1987.
It was already specified in 1987 consti that only gocc's with original charter are
embraced by the civil service.
Q: how do you apply that in the case of khan?
Q: When do you say that a GOCC has an original charter?
A: There is a law that created it which vested its original charter.
PETROPHIL has no original charter, but Tanodbayan has jurisdiction bec the
1973 governs it wherein there is no specification about original charter.
While in Khan, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction because it was governed
by 1987 consti wherein it was specified that only goccs with original charter
are under the jurisdiction of the ombudsman.

The power to create carries with it the power to abolish.

The power to abolish, often has an issue with the re-organization.
The power of the President to re-organization is often the issue. This power
of the Pres to re-organize is based on whether it is a valid re-organization.
What is based on valid re-organization.
Abolition of public office
Eugenio vs CSC
RES. NO. 93-4359 -abolishing the CESB (Career Executive Service Board)
Q: What was the basis of the CSC in abolishing CESB
A: Administrative Code of 1987 granted the CSC the right to reorganize the
CSC.
Q: Can CSC abolish CESB.
A: No, bec CESB is created by the legislature (P.D.1) theefore, only
legislature may abolish it.
Q: Relationship of CSC and CESB
A: line of coordination not line of authority
DOCTRINE in Eugenio Case
The creation of CESB is legislative in nature hence, the power to create
carries with it the power to abolish. The abolition is also legislative in
nature. The csc which is not a Congres, cannot abolish the CESB.

Administrative Code of 1987

Revised admin code 1970
Revised again in 1978 but it was not published , it was repealed
EXECUTIVE ORDER 292 - Admin Code 1987 IT Repealed admin code
1970
Repealing clause - it only repeals law, decree which is inconsistent
therewith. So that there is provision in 1970, and this provision was not
mentioned in 1987, neither it is inconsistent with 1987, it does not follow
that this provision is also repealed by the 1987 code. Only those that are
inconsistent in the new code was repealed.
Administrative code applies to all agencies of the government

The power to create a public ofice is vested with the legislature, and the
President has the power to abolish in the form of reorganization.

Buklod ng Kawani EIIB is a case of inactivation as distinguish from abolition

Power of the President
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to conduct anti
smuggling operations -Corazon Aquino
223 Executive Order, deactivating the EIIB. And created Task Force Aduana.
Q. What is the effect of this deactivation in relation with the employees of EIIB.
A. They will be separated from service.
Issue. W/n the Pres has the power to abolish punlic office.
Power to reorganize. Is it reorganization.?
basis of SC that the act of the pres was valid
It is a general rule that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the
legislature. "The exception is when it comes to agencies, bureaus, and
other offices under the executive department, the president may
deactivate them pursuant to control power over such offices, unless
such office is created by the Constitution"
Under Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as
the Administrative Code of 1987), the President, subject to the policy in the
Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency,
shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of
the Office of the President- legal basis of the President's power to reorganize.
Security of tenure of the employees: The right to security of tenure was not
violated bec the reorganization was done in good faith.
GOOD FAITH: If the reorganization is done for the purpose of economy
and to make bureaucracies more efficient.
When is a reorganization done in bad faith: RA 6566
 1.significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing
pattern
2.when an office was abolished and a new one was created which
performs the same functions
3. When the incumbents are replaced by those less qualified
4. When there is a classification of department/agencies and the reclassified
offices performs the same functions as the original offices
5. It violates the order of separation
Reorganize to economize and prevent redundancy.
Valid reorganization of office Effect
Once your office is validly abolished, you cannot interpose the defense of your
right to security of tenure having been violated because there is no office to
speak of. So no such thing as separation. You have not been separated
because there is no office from which you are separated from.

MENDOZA vs QUISUMBING "public officials or employees can only be

removed or dismissed for a cause and with due process"
Reorganization of DECS, removed Mendoza, Schools Division
Superintendent, who was reappointedby Quisumbing as such with a
"permanent" status.
THE REORGANIZATION WAS NOT VALID because it is done in bad faith.
The right to security of tenure of a government employee- they can only be
dimissed or suspended for a cause and with due process.
 Mendoza is not accorded due process.

Exception to the general rule in the right to security of tenure: Strictly

confidential positions are at the mercy of appointing authority. They serve
base on trust and confidence. Once the trust and confidence is no longer
there, they can already be removed. Like the case of Cabinet Secretaries, at
the pleasure of the Pres, they can be removed. Lack of trust and confidence.
 Appointment in a position in a given work area and an APPointment in a
position only.
Fernandez vs Sto. Tomas case trsnsfer
When you are appointed to the position but without specific office to which
youbare appointed, transfer, even without your consent, can be done.
Because transfer can be done but not as a "constructive dismissal". But in
Fernandez case, the transfer is valid because the appointment did not co-
specify that he will be appointed in a given work area.

Gonzales vs Provincial Government of Camarines Norte

Gonzales was appointed as provincial administrator of the province of
camarines norte on a permanent capacity.
 Upon the passage of RA 7160 or the LGC, the position of provincial
administrator became a highly confidential positon and co-terminous with its
appointing authority.
 General rule: Public officers may only be removed for a cause EXCEPT those
occupying a highly confidential position, who may be removed on the
ground of loss of trust and confidence. They can be removed any time at the
pleasure of the appointing authority.
 W/N Gonzales has security of tenure over her position as the prov
administrator.
 Prior to the enactment of Local Govt Code, the position of provincial
administrator is permanent in nature and career service position. However,
upon the enactment of LGC, it was reclassified to primarily confidential
position.
 Those who are appointed with a position of primarily confidential position does
not have a security of tenure and can be removed on the ground of loss of
trust and confidence.
 Which will apply, the time when she was appointed or the time when she was
terminated?
 Since Congress has a power to reclassify position, then the law prevailing at
the time of the termination will also govern the termination.

"When there is a valid abolition of offices, there is no separation because

there is no position from which he is separated."
 When you are a public officer, you act as an agent of the government because
you are exercising a portion of the sovereign power. But the government will
be bound only by the lawful act of the public officer. The government only
authorizes lawful acts of its agents. So that when public officer commits error
in the discharge of his government functions, the govt is not bound by such
error of the public officer.

State immunity from suit - The State may not be sued without its
consent. Consent may be express or implied. Express- provided in the law.
Implied- when the state steps down to the level of an individual/corporation by
entering into a contract.
Will state immunity from suit apply to all public officers?
When you are in the discharge of your governmental functions, you are
immuned from suit.
 When a p.o commits an error, will that also be tantamount to the govt
committing an error?
 The government only authorizes lawful acts of its public officers, that's why it
is not bound by their error. In the same way, the govt is not estopped. The
doctrine of estoppel does not lie against the govt when a p.o. commits an
error in the performance of his govtal duty.

Republic vs Bacases
The issue is the jurisdiction of the LRC in registering the land. The land is a
military reservation. Thus, it is inalienable. LRC only has jurisdiction to register
the lands that are alienable and disposable.
G.R. when you register a parcel of land, you will be issued with Title. "After 1
year reckoned from the entry of the registration, it can no longer be
questioned." (Prescriptive period) But, that restriction does not apply to the
govt.
The doctrine of estoppel does not lie against the government.
The govt is not bound by the error of its public officers.
Who was erroneous in the case?
The LRC. Bec it registered a land of public domain which is inalienable and
not disposable.

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY - when a p.o discharges his official

function, he enjoy this presumption.
But it is a "rebuttable presumption". You have to offer a strong, clear and
convincing evidence.
YAP VS LAGTAPON
A public official enjoys the presumption of regularity.
Principle in law: Mere allegations unsubstantiated by evidence deserves no
weight.
Yap has not overcome the presumpyion of regularity in the performance of the
duty of public officer.
Since there was a valid service of summon, the court acquired jurisdiction.

Three fold liability rule

A p.o can be held liable criminially, civilly, and administratively.
These 3 cases will proceed independently of the other.
Meaning, the criminal case will not depend on the outcome of the
administrative case. And vice versa.
EXCEPTION:
When the basis of the administrative liability is the criminial liability.
Example-when an administrative liability is anchored on the --overpricing?--
that wasdone o the certain goods in an agency and the administrative liability.
When the overpricing is not in public, does it follow that the admini liability....

AMPIL case
Violation of Sec 3 a and e of RA 3019- when you violate that provision of the
law, that is tantamount to misconduct.
 Espenesin acted only upon the verbal instruction of the lawyer of the joint
venture.
When the issue of ownership is resolved, that's the only time that we can say
that there is falsification.
Memorize the elements of sec 3 a and e
AND how sec 3 e is committed

Sec 3 a ELEMENTS
1. The offender is a public officer.
2. He persuades, induces, or influences another public officer to commit an
act or he allows himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit an
act.
3. The act that was performed by the public officer constitutes a violation of the
rules and regulations promulgated by duly competent authority or an
offense in the discharge of his official functions.

Sec 3 e ELEMENTS:
 The offender is a public officer.
 The act was done in the discharge of the p.o's discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions.
 The act was done through (MEG)
manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or
gross inexcusable negligence
 The act cause undue injury to any party, or to the govt, or gave any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference

What made the document already genuine?

-the signture of espenesin is already in the title given to ASB
What law did he violated by changing the name in the title?
 Section 108 of PD 1529, which provides that upon entry of the certificate of
title, attested to by the Register of Deeds, no amendment shall be made
except upon lawful order of the court.
Non-interference of the court - in determining of probable cause by the
ombudsman
9 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE:
1. To afford protection of the constitunional rights of the accused.
2. When necessary for the orderly administraton of justice, to avoid
oppression or multipicity of actions.
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice.
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority.
5. When the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation.
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent.
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense.
8. When it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution.
9. When the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance.

Ombudsman as a prosecuting arm in criminal aspect of the case.

If there is a probable cause, the Ombudsman will file an information before the
Sandiganbayan if the accused has a salary grade of 27 and above, or in
regular court for those below.
In administrative case, they have an adjudicatory power to decide.
Grave misconduct [penalty is dismissal]
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definitie rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior, or gross negligence of a
public officer.
3 elements that will make misconduct, grave is
1. Corruption
2. Clear intent to violate the law
3. Flagrant disregard of established rules.

Naguilian Emision Center vs Rimando

A public officer cannot be compelled to exercise a discretionary duty.
Ministerial- so clear and and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of
discretion in its performance. It is one which an officer performs in a
prescribed manner, without regard to the existence of his own judgment.
Discretionary- when the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives
him a right to decide how and when the duty shall be performed.

Ministerial- writ of mandamus

Discretion- writ of certiorari

The power to create a public office is legislative in nature.

General rule.The power to ceate carries with it the power to abolish.
However, there is the power of the Pres to reorganize. -inactivation of a
certain office. As long as the reorganization is done in good faith, it is valid
and does not violate the right to security of tenure of those in the inactivated
office.

Sometimes we interchangeably use "power" amd "function". But it's better to

say you are exercising a power to perform a function.
When you are a public officer you are exercising a portion of a sovereign
power, in order to perform your function, you need to have a power. In the
same way, administrative agencies are vested with power.

When a law is enforced a law, which an agency is mandated to enforce, in

order to more efficiently discharge their duty, they have to make rules. Every
law which needs to be enforced, needs an IRR which the agency makes.
Quasi-judicial function--- you are coming out with
decisions,ruling, determination- you are trying to determine the right of every
party. PAO not engaged in QJF. PNP-IAS is vested with quasi judial power.
In the process of quasi-judicial function, there is a hearing. There are
agencies which are vested only with INVESTIGATORIAL / inquisitorial power.
Ex. COA, NBI, CHR.
In the statute, the power is expressly provided for. The agency may also
exercise implied power to discharge its functions. Although it is not exprelly
 provided for in the law, impliedly, it is vested of that power. In the exercise of
its administrative power, the agency is doing regulatory power- it is doing a
function for the benefit and welfare of the people not for the agency.
In the performance of quasi-legislative power. Pwede bang idelegate ang
quasi legislative power? general rule, legislative power cannot be delegated.
Except, delegation of legislative power per se bec the law is already there,
only how to implement the legislative's work by making the rules.
Power of Subordinate Legislation- the LGU cannot amend the act of
Congress. An ordinance is valid if it not contravene the constitution or any
national laws. Since the LGU is a creation of the Congress, the LGU cannot
go against the will of the congress.
The administrative agency cannot amend the act of congress, it cannot
modify, alter, also by virtue of the power of subordinate legislation. so that in
coming out with the rules, in the exercise of its quasi-legislative function, the
admin agency cannot amend, alter, or modify an act of congress. The rule
should not amend, add, substract, alter the law which it seeks to implement so
that the rule will be valid. If the rule is not in consonance with the law, it will
become void. The law will prevail.

HIJO PLANTATION vs CENTRAL BANK

DOCTRINE: Such regulations have uniformly been held to have the force
of law, whenever they are found to be in consonance and in harmony
with the general purposes and objects of the law. Such regulations once
established and found to be in conformity with the general purposes of
the law, are just as binding upon all the parties, as if the regulation had
been written in the original law itself. Upon the other hand, should the
regulation conflict with the law, the validity of the regulation cannot be
sustained.
 there is no dispute that in case of discrepancy between the basic law and
a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails
because said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of
the basic law.

SEC OF JUSTICE vs LANTION

 Extradition--"the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the
object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the
requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any
 criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty
imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state
or government."

Role of the Dept of Justice at the evaluation stage of the extradition

proceedings
 only duty of the Sec of Justice is to file the petition after the request and all the
supporting papers are forwarded to him by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
 Ministerial in nature
Role of Sec of foreign Affairs
 authorized to evaluate the extradition papers, to assure their sufficiency, and
to determine whether or not the request is politically motivated, or that the
offense is a military offense which is not punishable under non-military penal
legislation.
 INVESTIGATIVE OR INQUISTORIAL
(a) taking and evaluation of evidence;
(b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and
(c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved
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. Hence, if the only
purpose for investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted before it
based on the facts and circumstances presented to it, and if the agency
is not authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties,
then there is an absence of judicial discretion and judgment.

Due process is comprised of two components substantive due process

which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the
rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, and procedural due
process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as
well as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent
tribunal
 CIR vs CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORP
 The IRR cannot amend the law which it seeks to implement
 If there is a conflict between the law and the IRR, the law will always prevail.

SOLID HOLMES vs PAYAWAL

 Statutes conferring powers on their administrative agencies must be
liberally construed to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in
accordance with the legislative purpose.

HEIRS OF SANTIAGO PASTRAL vs SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS

AND COMMUNICATIONS
In the absence of any illegality, error of law, fraud or imposition, none of
which were proved by the petitioners in the instant case, said findings
should be respected.

General rule: Non-interference of the court

Exception: when there is ILLEGALITY, ERROR OF LAW, FRAUD or
IMPOSITION (I.E.F.I)

Criminal case-acquittal (accused)

Administrative case-exonerated (respondent)
When there is already a complaint filed, he is already an accused
In administrative proceedings, -respondent

Even without the private complaint, a criminal case may proceed because the
state is being offended by the accused.
In admin proceedings, if the complainant filed an affidavit of desistance, it is
not automatic that the case will be dismissed, the government is now the
adversed party.
Ombudsman can entertain anynomous complaint as long as there is
substance-ultimate facts are there, not generalization.
when there is a complaint, there will be a preliminary investigation by a
committee created by that purpose in the agency. The committee will come
 out with recommendation, whether to dismiss the case or to file the case if
there is a prima facie case.
 The head of the agency will determine if the case should be filed
 in case of desistance of the private complainant, the administrative agency will
be the complainant but if without the testimony of the private complainant the
case cannot be proven, then the case will be dismissed. BUT it is not
automatic.
 Formal charge- contains the substance of the complaint, summary of the
ultimate facts, you are entitled to have counsel (can be waived), and you may
opt to undergo formal investigation (can be waived)
 In criminal case, cannot waive the right to have a counsel. Unlike in admin,
the right to have a counsel ,may be waived and if u dont have one, it is not
obligation of the agency to provide you a counsel.
 Subpoena - the court has inherent power to issue subpoena. also
admininstrative agency can issue subpoena
 Contempt- inherent to the court , not absolute to administrative agency, when
the rule so provides. Or when the purpose is to get/illicit information from the
witnesses
 Writ of execution- in quasi judicial- has the power to issue writ of execution.
Implied power.
 Doctrine of res judicata- in criminal case, it applies. In quasi judicial
proceedings- not absolute. Yes if in the exercise of quasi judicial power, but
when administrative, no.
 Forum shopping- applies to administrative proceedings

Besaga vs Acosta
PROVIDED UNDER THE RULE: Notice of appeal- must be filed to the RED
Must be filed before the court whose decision you are appealing
Appeal memorandum- DENR secretary
What is the difference? --- Notice of appeal, notice to the court that you are
appealing its decision
Appeal Memorandum- appeal itself. Containing the summary of the case and
the errors you want to appeal amd your arguments.
The complainant argues that the rules are not met.
When does a decision become final?
General rule : 15 days
 When aftervthebreglamentary period within which to appeal or file a motion of
reconsideration, jo mr has been filed, it attained finality.
Did it attain finality?
No. In proceedings before the administrative bodies, the general rule has
always been liberality. Strict compliance with the rules of procedure in
administrative cases is not required. Therefore the appeal memorandum is
sufficient.
 Solid Holmes vs Payawal - Statutes conferring powers on their
administrative agencies must be liberally construed to enable them to
discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the legislative
purpose.

When it amount to deprivation of right, the rule can be liberally construed in

judicial proceedings. But in administrative proceedings, the general rule is that
it should be liberally construed.
LIMIT: limited by the requiremwnts of the due process. Administrative due
process is the opportunity to be heard. Liberal construction has no application
when due process is violated.
 The right to appeal is a statutory privilege meaning you can only appeal
when it is provided for in the statute and must do it accordance with the
provision of the statute.
Between technicality and right, which will prevail?
-Right will always prevail.

PISON vs NLRC
In quasi-judicial proceedings, procedural rules governing the service of
summons are not strictly construed. Substantial compliance thereof is
sufficient.

MONTEMAYOR vs BUNDALIAN
Administrative due process- it is enough that the party is given the opportunity
to be heard before the case against him is decided.
 BASIC PRINCIPLES IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
1. burden is in the complainant to prove by substantial evidence the
allegations in his complaint. -burden of proof
 Substantial evidence- It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine
otherwise.
2. in reviewing administrative decisions of the executive branch of the
government, the findings of facts made therein are to be respected
so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.
3. administrative decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction can
only be set aside on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error
of law G.F.E
Quantum of evidence
Administrative case- substantial evidence
Civil case- preponderance of evidence
Criminal case- proof beyond reasonable doubt
Res judicata applies only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, not to the
exercise of administrative power.

The investigation of petitioner is administrative in nature, therefore the

doctrine of res judicata finds no application to the case.
PPC vs CA
In order that res judicata may bar the institution of a subsequent action, the
following requisites must concur:
(a) the former judgment must be final;
(b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties;
(c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
(d) there must be between the first and the second actions
(i) identity of parties,
(ii) identity of subject matter, and
 (iii) identity of cause of action.
A judgment may be considered as one rendered on the merits when
it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed
facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections; or when the
judgment is rendered after a determination of which party is right, as
distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or
merely technical point.
JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS -there is disposal of the case
If what is done is not a judgement on the merits, such as when it is a result of
"fact-finding investigation", res judicata will not apply.

EVANGELISTA vs JARENCIA
Whether the Agency, acting thru its officials, enjoys the authority to issue
subpoenas in its conduct of fact-finding investigations.
It is not necessary that there is a complaint filed before a subpoena may
be issued by an administrative agency.
An administrative agency may be authorized to make investigations, not only
in proceedings of a legislative or judicial nature, but also in proceedings
whose sole purpose is to obtain information upon which future action of a
legislative or judicial nature may be taken and may require the attendance of
witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature.
REQUIREMENTS OF SUBPOENA
1) within the authority of the agency;
(2) the demand is not too indefinite; and
(3) the information is reasonably relevant.

 Right against self-incrimination in administrative proceedings-- He can invoke

this right in the process of fact finding investigation but when he was issued
subpoena to appear and to testify, he cannot already invoke his right right
against self-incrimination.
 COLLATERAL ATTACK OF EXECUTIVE ORDER -- Unfortunately, for
reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of executive orders, which
are commonly said to have the force and effect of statutes 32 cannot be
collaterally impeached.

LASTIMOSA vs VASQUEZ
POWER OF THE OMBUDSMAN
--investigate and prosecute on its own on its own or on complaint against any
act or ommission of a public official , when such act or ommission is ILLEGAL,
UNJUST, IMPROPER or INEFFICIENT, regardless if it was made in the
performance of the public official's duty or not. It is sufficient that the act or
ommission was committed by a public official.
In the existence of his power, the Ombudsman is authorized to call on public
prosecutors for assistance, (SEC 31of the OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1989)
Those designated to assisst him shall be under his supervision and control.
When a prosecutor is deputized by the Ombudsman, the former cannot act on
her own or refuse the order of the Ombudsman. SEC 15(g) of the
Ombudsman Act give the Office of the Ombudsman the power to punish for
contempt in accordance with the rules of court.

It is true that, under Sec 24 of the Ombudsman's Act, to justify the preventive
suspension of a public official, the evidence against him should be
strong, and any of the following circumstances is present:
(a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty,
oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty;
(b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or
(c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed
against him.