D.

Adjudicatory Powers

Generally.
Administrative agencies or tribunals have and exercise "determinative" or "adjudicatory" powers and
functions.

(1) Involve specific parties. — These terms aim to describe powers and functions which involve the
decision or determination by administrative agencies of the rights, duties, and obligations of specific
individuals and persons, as contrasted with powers (i.e., rule making) of administrative agencies which,
while they may involve decisions or determinations in the broadest sense, involve persons generally
rather than specially, and usually operate only prospectively.

(2) Involve judicial function exercised by a person other than a judge. — In speaking of the functions of
an administrative agency, the terms "quasijudicial" and "adjudicatory" are synonymous or correlative,
but not all determinations by an administrative agency are judicial in nature or quasijudicial.1 One or the
other is used to designate a power or function that partakes of the judicial but is exercised by a person
other than a judge.

It is the power of an administrative agency to hear and determine, or to ascertain facts and decide by
the application of rules to the ascertained facts. By this power, administrative authorities are enabled to
interpret and apply not only implementing rules and regulations promulgated by them but also the laws
entrusted to their administration.

(3) Involve exercise of judicial power conveniently styled "quasi-judicial." — The fact remains that the
function of any particular act must be either administrative or judicial and there can in reality be no
middle or halfway ground between them. The use of such terms is simply a convenient way of approving
the exercise of a judicial power by an administrative agency (e.g., legality of contract) or approving
review by the courts of the exercise of power by administrative agencies. Aside from such approval, the
terms "quasi-judicial" or "judicial in nature" are used to designate the character of particular
proceedings or powers, the exercise of which must be accompanied with certain formalities and
safeguards characteristic of the judicial process.3 Where an administrative tribunal's function partakes
of the judicial, its exercise is styled "quasi-judicial," but it is the exercise of judicial power nonetheless.
Still, administrative, agencies are not considered courts; they are neither part of the judicial system nor
are they deemed judicial tribunals.

Extent of judicial or quasi-judicial powers of administrative agencies.

(1) jurisdiction limited. — Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative
agencies is well- recognized in our jurisdiction, basically because the need for special
competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of
complex or specialized character and because of the companion recognition that the dockets of
our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged. (2) Extent of powers depends largely on
enabling act. — In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which an
administrative agency may exercise is defined in the enabling act of such agency. In other words,
the extent to which an administrative agency may exercise such powers depend largely, if not
wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency. The grant of
original jurisdiction on a quasi-judicial agency is not implied.
 (2) In the exercise of such powers, the agency concerned must commonly interpret and apply
contracts, determine the rights of private parties under such contracts, and award damages
whenever appropriate. One thrust of the multiplication of administrative agencies is that the
interpretation of contracts and the determination of private rights under it is no longer a
uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by our regular courts but may be conferred upon an
administrative agency.6

(3) Split jurisdiction not favored. — The rule is that when an administrative body or agency is
conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject matter pertaining to
its specialization are deemed to be included within its jurisdiction. Split jurisdiction is not
favored. Thus, an agency with exclusive jurisdiction over controversies involving sale of
subdivision lots has also jurisdiction to hear and decide claims for refund by a subdivision
buyer.7 Similarly, a complaint for specific performance and annulment of mortgage and
damages filed by a buyer of subdivision lots against the mortgagee, though involving title to,
possession of, or interest in, real estate was held well within the jurisdiction of the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for it involved a claim against the subdivision developer as
well as the mortgagee to which the former mortgaged the lots without the written approval of
the (HLURB) as required by law.8

(4) Grant of particular power must be found in the law itself. — Where there is nothing in the law
that would suggest that a particular power has been granted, such as the power to decide
contractual disputes, the same cannot be exercised.9 Except for constitutional officials who can
trace their competence to act to the fundamental law itself, a public official must locate in the
statute relied upon, a grant of power before he can exercise it.10 (5) General policy to uphold
exercise. — It is the general policy of the courts to sustain the decision of administrative
authorities not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their
presumed knowledgeability and even expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce.11 A
court cannot compel an agency to do a particular act or to enjoin such act which is within the
latter's prerogative, except when in the exercise of its authority, it gravely abuses or exceeds its
jurisdiction.

Distinguished from judicial power.

judicial power; in the strict sense, is the power to hear, try and determine all sorts of cases at law and
equity which are brought before the courts. It is the power and authority to make a final, rather than an
initial determination, of what the law is and adjudicate the respective legal rights or liabilities of the
contending parties with respect to the matter in controversy.

(1) Where function primarily administrative. — For the purpose of deciding questions as to the powers
with which an administrative agency may be vested, the true rule is that where the function of the
agency is primarily administrative and the power to hear and determine controversies is granted as an
incident to the administrative duty, the power is administrative, or at least it is properly exercisable by
administrative agencies. Such a power is variously held to be judicial but validly conferred, or to be
quasijudicial or administrative adjudicatory power.
(2) Where function primarily to decide question of legal rights. — Where the duty is primarily to decide
questions of legal rights between private parties with respect to the matter in controversy, such decision
being the primary object and not merely incidental to regulation or some other administrative function,
the question raised is judicial involving the exercise of judicial function. An element of judicial action
which is sometimes stressed by the courts is freedom of action or independence and the absence of
control or coercive influence.5

Distinguished from quasi legislative power or rule-making.

A rule is the product of rule-making and rule-making is a part of the administrative process that
resembles a legislature's enactment of statutes. Adjudication’4 is the part of the administrative process
that resembles a court's decision of a case.15

(1) Elements of futurity and restrospection. — Judicial, quasijudicial or adjudicatory action investigates,
declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed to exist,
while legislation or quasi-legislation, or rule- making looks to the future and changes existing conditions
by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject thereto.

(2) Elements of generality and particularity. —The adjudicatory function applies to named persons or to
specific situations, while the second lays down general regulations that apply to or affect classes of
persons or situations.16 In other words, while adjudications are typically designed to apply to named
parties, usually only a few, rule-making involves the issuance of rules or the making of determinations
which are addressed to indicated but unnamed and unspecified persons or situations. However, even
though action is evidenced by a rule, it may still constitute adjudication. Regulatory or rule-making
powers may, in certain instances, merge into determinative or adjudicative powers. Thus, apart from the
question of establishing procedural rules, an agency such as a licensing board, may lay down general
substantive regulations setting forth factors, the existence of which will lead it to refuse to grant permit
or license.’7

(3) Due process requirement of notice and hearing. — In exercising its quasi-judicial function, an
administrative agency adjudicates the rights of persons before it. The determination of facts and the
applicable law as the basis for the exercise of judicial discretion are essential for the performance of this
function. On these considerations, it is elementary that the due process requirements which include
prior notice and hearing must be observed. As a general rule, prior notice and hearing are not essential
to the validity of rules and regulations promulgated

Distinguished from investigative power.

The distinction between investigative and adjudicative functions has been set out, thus: (1) "Investigate"
commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study.
The dictionary definition of "investigate" is "to observe or study closely; inquire into systematically: "to
search or inquire into" xxx to subject to an official probe x x x: to conduct an official inquiry." The
purpose of an investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere
included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts
inquired into by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry. (2) "Adjudicate,"
commonly or popularly understood, means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule
on, settle. The dictionary defines the term as "to settle finally (the rights and duties of parties to a court
case) on the merits of issues raised: x x x to pass judgment on: settle judicially: x x x act as judge." And
"adjudge" means "to decide or rule upon as a judge or with judicial or quasi-judicial powers." In a legal
sense, "adjudicate" means "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority; To determine finally.
Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means "To pass on judicially, to decide,
settle, or decree, or to sentence or condemn, xxx implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry
of a judgment."13