Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

A D MI N

L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



Increase in water rates by LWD is subject to review &
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative approval by LWUA. After LWUA reviews the rate
Remedies established by a LWD, a water concessionaire may
Before a party can be allowed to seek judicial appeal the same to the NWRB whose decision may
intervention, he is to exhaust all means of then be appealed to Office of the President (Merida
administrative redress available under the law. Water Dist. vs. Bacarro, 567 SCRA 204)
3 reasons for the doctrine:
A direct action in court w/o prior exhaustion of Third party claim before the court was for recovery of
administrative remedies, when required, is premature, possession & injunction, but it was in essence an
warranting its dismissal on a motion to dismiss action questioning the validity of levy in the labor case
grounded on lack of cause of action. The failure to vs. Green Mountain/Roberto Ongpin, hence, an
observe the doctrine does not affect the jurisdiction of incident of the labor case. RTC cannot enjoin the NLRC
the court. (Deltaventures Resources vs. Cabato, 327 SCRA
522).
Cases
Doctrine is applicable only to acts in the performance
of a quasi-judicial, not rule-making, function. Where
what is assailed is the validity of IRR issued by the
National Government Center Admin Committee OSP is merely a component of OMB and may only act
pursuant to its quasi-legislative power under RA 9207, under the supervision & control and upon authority of
on the ground that it is not germane to the object & the OMB (Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 717).
purpose of the law, the regular court has jurisdiction to
pass upon the same (Holy Spirit Homeowners Assn. The review as an act of supervision & control by DOJ
vs. Defensor, 497 SCRA 582). Secretary over fiscals finds basis in this doctrine. He
may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings.
MR must first be filed under NLRC Rules of Procedure Mistakes, abuse or negligence by an admin agency in
before special civil action for certiorari under 65 of the initial steps should be corrected by higher admin
Rules of Court may be availed of (Sunshine Transp. vs. authorities, and not directly by the courts.
NLRC, 254 SCRA 51).
RSP has administrative supervision, not control, over
Action to recover forestry products under DENR CPs and PPs. He deprived Rabi of right to file MR &
custody shall be directed to that agency and not the appeal to Sec. (RSP Aurillo vs. Rabi, 392 SCRA 604).
courts thru a complaint for replevin & damages. Actions
of BFD Director are subject to review by DENR Protests regarding CARP implementation are under
Secretary (Task Force Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge exclusive jurisdiction of DAR Secretary. The petition for
Paderanga, 19 June 2008). certiorari by Polo Coconut before CA asserting that the
PARO gravely abused his discretion in placing Polo
Sec. 8, PD 705 as amended states that - estate under the CARP will not prosper until all
1. All actions and decisions of the Bureau of Forest remedies under DARAB Rules have been exhausted
Development (now LMB) Director are subject to review (DAR vs. PCPI, 564 SCRA 80).
by the DENR Secretary;
2. The decisions of DENR Secretary are appealable to The complaint of Senior Engr. Ortizo for prohibition &
the President; and injunction should have been dismissed. He should
3. Courts cannot review the decisions of the DENR appeal the reassignment order of RM to the NIA
Secretary except thru a special civil action for certiorari Administrator & if necessary, to CSC (Corsiga vs.
or prohibition. Defensor, 391 SCRA 274).

Distinction bet. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction & Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of admin
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies remedies when it went directly to CA on a petition for
1. Both deal with the proper relationships between certiorari & prohibition from the NTC Order without first
courts and administrative bodies. filing a MR w/in 15 days pursuant to NTC Rules. That
2. Exhaustion applies where the claim is originally the NTC Order became immediately executory does
cognizable in the first instance by the administrative not mean foreclosure of remedy of filing MR (Rep. vs.
body alone, while primary jurisdiction applies where the Extelcom, 373 SCRA 321).
case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court &
administrative agency but the case requires Under Sec. 4 of Rule 43 of Rules of Court, an appeal
determination of some technical or factual matter (thru petition for review before CA), shall be taken w/in
15 days from the date of the denial of the first and only
Cases MR allowed. The filing of the second MR by SEC
before the OP did not the suspend running of the period

ihipnghangin 1

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



to file a petition for review before the CA, w/c expired from the viewpoint of the litigating party against whom
15 days after petitioner SEC received the OP a ruling was made.
Resolution denying the first MR of the SEC and 3. The commonality they share is in the same
upholding the position of PICOP. The 2nd MR does not opportunity that underlies both, i.e. opportunity for the
have any legal effect (SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 451). ruling tribunal to re-examine its findings and
opportunity for the party to be heard.
Petitioner should have appealed the order of the RD
denying its motion to quash the writ of execution re: Cases where a prior MR is not necessary:
monetary award of the DOLE Reg. Director (in exercise 1. the order is a patent nullity, as where the tribunal has
of his visitorial & enforcement powers) to the Labor no jurisdiction;
Secretary, instead of filing w/ CA a motion for extension there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
of time to file a petition for review (Laguna CATV vs. question & 2. any further delay would prejudice the
Maraan, 392 SCRA 226). interests of Government or of the petitioner;
3. deprivation of due process & there is urgency for
Submission of dispute to Lupon ng Tagapamayapa for relief;
amicable settlement under Sec. 408 LGC. If 4. issue is purely legal;
complainant fails to comply w/this requirement, court 5. public interest is involved.
may dismiss the complaint (Berba vs. Pablo, 474
SCRA 686). Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of admin
remedies
TACC did not file MR. It should have appealed the
LLDA Order, imposing penalty of P1.062M for its 1. Whether respondent’s transfer to the position of
pollutive wastewater discharge, to the DENR Secretary Regional Director of PAO, which was made w/o her
in view of the transfer of LLDA to DENR thru the consent, amounts to removal without cause is a legal
Pollution Adjudication Board for administrative issue (Demaisip vs. Bacal, 12/06/00).
supervision under EO 149, before filing a petition for
certiorari in the CA under Rule 65 (The Alexandra 2. Whether the memo of ARMM Governor, ordering the
Condo Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 453). On TACC’s reinstatement of petitioner already declared AWOL &
offer to pay a reduced fine, power to compromise dropped from the rolls, was issued in excess of
claims is vested w/COA under PD 1445 (100T) or jurisdiction is a legal question (Arimao vs. Taher, 498
Congress under Sec.20, Bk. V, EO 292. SCRA 75).

In Prov. of Siquijor vs. COA (12/04/09), SC dismissed 3. Whether or not the PNP Chief had jurisdiction to take
petitioner’s petition for certiorari to nullify decision of cognizance of the complaint filed by a private citizen
COA Region Vll – as affirmed by COA Legal – vs. him is a legal question (Lastimoso vs. Senior Insp.
disallowing the grant of P20T Xmas bonus, for failure Asayo, 06 March 2007) [PLEB]
to exhaust admin remedies. Petitioner having failed to
pursue an appeal w/Commission Proper under COA 4. Where respondent is a dep’t secretary, whose acts
Rules of Procedure, the disallowance as ruled by COA as alter ego of the President, bear implied or assumed
LAO-Local has become final & executory. Issue re approval of the latter(Quisumbing vs. Gumban, 193
Pres.’ marginal note on SP Ordinance is not legal. Also, SCRA 523) [Glan to Malapatan]
remedy of certiorari may be availed of only if there is
no appeal, or plain, speedy, adequate remedy xxx 5. Where the doctrine of qualified political agency
applies (Binamira vs. Garucho, 190 SCRA 154)
PD 242
PD 242 dated 09 July 1973 is a general law which 6. Whether or not petitioner’s dismissal from the
provides for administrative settlement or adjudication service is the proper penalty for the first offense of
by the DOJ of disputes, claims and controversies disgraceful & immoral conduct is a question of law
between or among agencies of the government. (Castro v. Gloria & Gutang, 363 SCRA 423)

But if the general law conflicts with a special law (ex. 7. Where petitioner is not asking for reversal of policies
PD 464 which deals specifically with assessment and of PCST nor demanding that she be allowed to take
appraisal of real property for purposes of taxation by final exam (Regino v. Pangasin College of Science &
LGUs), the special law prevails. Technology, 443 SCRA 56).

Distinction: Exhaustion of Admin Remedies & Due 8. There is question of law when doubt or differences
Process arise as to what the law is on a certain state of things.
1. Both embody linked & related principles. xxx question of facts when doubt arise as to
2. Exhaustion principle is based on the perspective of truth/falsehood of alleged facts.
the ruling tribunal, while due process is considered

ihipnghangin 2

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



9. Taking into consideration that petition is filed by a agency of Exec. branch. This power may be delegated
non-lawyer who claims that poverty denied him the to his cabinet members under doctrine of qualified
services of a lawyer, the SC may set aside the political agency (DENR Sec. vs. DENR Employees,409
requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies SCRA 359).
and resolve to go direct to the merits of the petition
(Sabello vs. DECS, 12/26/89). Principle of Presidential Power of Control
President’s power over the executive branch of
10. There is nothing left to be done except to seek court government, including all executive officers xxx (Sec.
action (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 639). 17, Art. Vll).
Power to alter, modify or nullify or set aside what a
11. There is estoppel on the part of the party invoking subordinate had done in the performance of his duties
it. & to substitute the judgment of the former with that of
12. There is unreasonable delay of official action that the latter.
will irreparably prejudice the complainant.
13. There is no plain, adequate and speedy remedy Cses
except court action. Reorganization of DOH under EO 102: not a
14. The land in question is private. usurpation of legislative power. EO 292 (Sec. 31, Bk.
15. The amount is too small so as to make the rule lll, Ch. 10) gives continuing authority to Pres. to
impractical. reorganize admin structure of OP to achieve economy
16. There is nothing left to be done except court action. & efficiency (Tondo Med. Center Emp. Assn. vs. CA,
527 SCRA 748).
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
In the absence of a constitutional proviso or statute to The President has the power to reorganize the offices
the contrary, official acts of a dep’t secretary are and agencies in the executive department in line with
deemed acts of the President unless disapproved or his constitutionally granted power of control and by
reprobated by the latter. Except where the Const. or virtue of a valid delegation of the legislative power to
law requires that he acts in person, multifarious reorganize executive offices under existing statutes
functions are performed by dep’t heads. (Banda vs. Ermita, 618 SCRA 448).

Recognizes the existence of a single executive, all President can exercise executive power motu proprio
executive organizations are adjuncts of Exec. and can supplant decision or act of the subordinate
Department and the heads of these departments are with his own. When the President ordered the
agents of the Chief Executive. development of housing project (Smokey Mountain)
with reclamation work, making the DENR part of the
The Exec. Secretary has the authority to reverse the implementing committee, the required authorization of
Decision of the Director which has been affirmed by the DENR to reclaim land is deemed satisfied. The ultimate
Department Secretary. power over alienable and disposable public lands is
reposed in the President and not the DENR Secretary.
Cases To still require DENR authorization on Smokey
Doctrine is not applicable to the Office of the Mountain would be a derogation of Pres.’s powers as
Ombudsman (Mayor Perez & Treas. Juanita Apostol head of Exec. Branch (Chavez vs. NHA, 530 SCRA
vs. Sandiganbayan, 503 SCRA 254). 241).

The authority of the DENR technical team which The creation of the Phil. Truth Commission (PTC) is not
conducted the survey emanated from the Special justified by the Pres.’s power of control. The power of
Order issued by the DENR Secretary, the alter ego of control (to alter, modify or nullify) is different from
the President. His acts are presumed to be the acts of power to create public offices – the former is inherent
the President, unless repudiated by the latter (Province in the Executive, while the latter finds basis from either
of Camarines Norte vs. Province of Quezon & Mun. of a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty
Calauag, 367 SCRA 91). to faithfully execute the laws. PTC’s creation is justified
under Sec. 17, Art. Vll imposing on President the duty
Department Secretaries cannot delegate their duties to ensure that laws are faithfully executed (Biraogo vs.
as members of NPB, much less their power to vote & PTC, 637 SCRA 78). Note: PTC is not borne out of
approve board resolutions (NPC Drivers and restructuring of the O.P. since PTC is not part of the
Mechanics Assn. vs. NPC, 503 SCRA 138). O.P. structure prior to EO No. 1.

DENR Secretary’s Order transferring the regional Does the Pres. have authority to reorganize the Exec.
office from Cotabato City to Koronadal City is deemed Dep’t?
the President’s act. As Executive head, Pres.under Art. Although gen. rule is power to abolish a public office is
Vll Sec. 17 has continuing authority to reorganize any lodged w/legislature (unless created by Const. itself),

ihipnghangin 3

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



the exception is that as far as agencies/offices in the direct intereference w/political affairs of bargy (David
Exec. Dep’t. are concerned, the Pres.’s power of vs. Judge Paredes, 439 SCRA 130).
control may justify him to inactive the functions of a
particular office, or a law may grant him broad authority Review of Admin Decisions
to carry out organizational measures (Buklod ng General rule: Factual findings are not subject to judicial
Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora, 360 SCRA 726). review & must be accorded not only utmost respect but
finality as long as decisions are supported xxx
Also, under Sec. 31, Bk. lll of EO 292, “The Pres. in Exceptions:
order to achieve simplicity, economy & efficiency shall 1. misappreciation of facts;
have continuing authority to reorganize the 2. not supported by substantial evidence;
administrative structure of the O.P.” For this purpose, 3. when so warranted, there may be judicial review;
he may transfer functions of other Dep’ts or Agencies 4. findings are vitiated by fraud,
to the O.P. (Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora, 360 5. imposition or collusion;
SCRA 718). The EIIB is a bureau attached to the Dep’t 6. procedure is irregular;
of Finance. It falls under the Office of the President. 7. palpable or serious errors have been committed;
(Buklod vs. Zamora) 8. grave abuse of discretion,
9. arbitrarines or capriciousness is manifest
Rationale of this continuing authority: OP is nerve
center of Exec. Branch. To remain effective & efficient, Cases
OP must be capable of being shaped & reshaped by
Pres. in the manner he deems fit to carry out his Factual finding of DARAB w/c relied on certification by
policies/directives. OP is command post of the MARO that petitioner is a tenant is not conclusive on
Pres.(Domingo vs. Zamora, 2/6/03). Since EO 81 courts. Tenancy is not purely a factual relationship but
(transferring sports activities of DECS to PSC) is based also a legal relationship that can only be created
on Pres.’s continuing authority under EO 292, EO 81 is w/consent of the true & lawful landholder (Bautista vs.
a valid exercise of the President’s delegated power to Araneta, 326 SCRA 234).
reorganize the O.P.
President’s Power of General Supervision Classification of public land is a function of the Director
1. ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or the of LMB and his decision when approved by DENR Sec.
subordinate acts within the law as to question of fact is conclusive & not subject to
2. not incompatible with power to discipline which judicial review (Rep. vs. Imperial, 303 SCRA 127)
includes power to investigate
3. Jurisdiction over admin disciplinary cases vs. The calibration of evidence to assess whether a prima
elective local officials lodged in two authorities: facie graft case exists vs. private respondents is a
4. Disciplining Authority and Investigating Authority question of fact (Samson vs. Ombudsman, 439 SCRA
325). Mandamus will lie to compel an officer to perform
Cases a ministerial duty but not to compel the performance of
Distinguishing power of control from power of a discretionary act requiring the exercise of judgment,
supervision: the latter is the power of mere oversight as in determining whether or not probable cause exists
over LGUs; checking whether LGU or its officers vs. them.
perform their duties as provided by law and whether
the rules are followed. He cannot lay down the rules for PI is merely inquisitorial mode to discover whether or
the doing of the act. If rules are not observed, the not there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime
superior may order the work done or redone to conform has been committed & the person charged is
to prescribed rules but he cannot prescribe his own responsible.
manner for the doing of the act. (Bito-onon vs.
Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732) SC maintains consistent policy of non-interference in
determination of the Ombudsman of existence of
President’s power of general supervision extends to probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse xx.
the Liga ng mga Barangay. The representatives of the Policy is based not only on respect for investigatory &
Liga sit in an ex officio capacity at mun., city & prov’l prosecutor powers granted by Const. but upon
sanggunians. Liga is the vehicle thru w/c the barangay practicality. Otherwise, SC will be hampered by
participates in enactment of ordinances (Bito-Onon vs. innumerable petitions. (Napoles vs. Omb.,
Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732). 03/15/2016).

Liga ng mga Barangay is not subj. to control by Chief There is conflict in factual finding not only at the
Executive or his alter ego. The acts of DILG in nullifying Ombudsman level , but at appellate court (Fabian vs.
results of Liga elections & appointing Rayos as Pres. Agustin, 2/14/2003). SC reversed the CA amended
of Liga-Caloocn went beyond supervision & constituted decision and ordered resp.’s dismissal from service.

ihipnghangin 4

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



The issue of whether or not petitioner is an alter ego of law, examine the factual setting including the evidence
Milagros Matuguina, the losing party in the MNR case, adduced thereto. The more important issue, which is of
is one of fact, and should be threshed out in said admin law, assimilates the facts.
proceedings & not in prohibition proceedings in court
(Matuguina Wood Products vs. CA, 263 SCRA 508). The PEA decision to dismiss petitioners from the
service, upon recommendation of PAGC as approved
When may courts review administrative decisions? by the President after due proceedings, should have
1. determine constitutionality of a law, treaty or order been appealed to the CSC under EO 292. From CSC,
2. determine jurisdiction of admin body it can be elevated to the CA via a petition for review
3. determine any other question of law under Rule 43. From there, it can be appealed to the
4. determine question of fact when necessary to SC thru a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
determine either a constitutional or jurisdictional issue, (Lacson vs. PEA, 5/30/11). Petitioners chose wrong
the commission of abuse of authority, or error of law. remedy by appealing under Rule 65 their dismissal by
the PEA to the CA instead of CSC. As their dismissal
All errors or decisions of admin bodies involving has become final & executory, S.C. no longer has
questions of law are subject to judicial review under power to review & act.
Sec. 5 (2e), Art. Vlll of Constitution.
Difference bet. Rule 45 petition (Petition for Review on
Principle that only questions of law shall be raised in Certiorari) and a Rule 65 petition (Petition for
an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule Certiorari):
45 admits of exceptions, namely: A Rule 65 petition is an original action that dwells on
jurisdictional errors of whether a lower court/tribunal
1. findings are grounded entirely on speculations or acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with
conjectures; grave abuse of discretion. A Rule 45 petition is a mode
2. inference made is manifestly mistaken; of appeal which centers on the review of a judgment,
3. there is grave abuse of discretion; final order or award rendered by a lower court/tribunal
4. judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; involving purely questions of law.
5. findings of facts are conflicting;
6. findings are conclusions w/o citation of specific MCQ: In judicial review of administrative decisions
evidence on w/c they are based; a. Courts can re-examine the sufficiency of evidence &
7. factual findings are premised on supposed are authorized to receive additional evidence not
substantial evidence (Conduct Prejudicial) but based submitted earlier.
on conjectures (Proj Engr Bernaldo vs. OMB, 562 b. A trial de novo is not contemplated.
SCRA 60). Here, the OMB decision suspending c. Factual findings are accorded not only respect but
Bernaldo for 9 mos. – for alleged overpayment - (as finality binding on the court as long as supported by
affirmed by CA) was not supported by substantial preponderance of evidence.
evidence. SC granted her petition for review on d. Errors or decisions of administrative bodies may be
certiorari under Rule 45. questioned in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Evidentiary or factual matters are not proper grounds Immunities


in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Such petition Admin bodies cannot grant criminal and civil
will prosper only if there is showing of grave abuse of immunities to persons unless the law explicitly confers
discretion or an act w/o or in excess of jurisdiction of such power.
admin tribunal.
PCGG under EO 14A may grant immunity from
Requisites for petition for certiorari to proper: Petitioner criminal prosecution to any person providing info or
TACC must show that – testifying in its investigatn to establish unlawful
a. LLDA acted w/o or in excess of its jurisdiction or with property acquisition.
grave abuse of discretion; and
b. there is no appeal or a plain, speedy and adequate Apply Art 2028, Civil Code: amicable settlement in civil
remedy in the ordinary course of law. The plain & cases is applicable to PCGG cases.
adequate remedy is a MR of the assailed decision
(Alexandra Condo. Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 455). OMB under Sec. 17 of RA 6770 may grant immunity
[transfer of LLDA to DENR under EO 149] from criminal prosecution xxx

Mixed questions of facts and law are subject to judicial Three-fold Responsibility
review (Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts). This A public official may be held criminally, civilly &
doctrine states that when a finding of fact is so administratively liable for violation of duty or for a
intimately involved and dependent upon a question of wrongful act or omission.
law, the court will, in order to resolve the question of

ihipnghangin 5

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



Remedies may be invoked separately, alternately, The object sought is not the punishment of the officer
simultaneously or successively but the improvement of public service & preservation of
public faith & confidence. While complaint was filed by
Rule: Administrative cases are independent from FFIB of OMB only in Sept. 2000 or more than 7 yrs.
criminal cases after commission (1992) of the act, OMB may still
investigate said anonymous complaint filed in 1996
Exception: Law expressly provides for prior final (Omb. vs. BAC Chair De Sahagun of Intramuros
administrative determination. Example – In prosecution Administration, 562 SCRA 123).
of ULP under Labor Code, no criminal prosecution for
ULP can be filed w/o a final judgment in a previous The death or retirement of officer from the service does
administrative proceeding. not preclude a finding of administrative liability to which
he shall be answerable. Jurisdiction over the admin
The dismissal for prematurity by the CP of petitioner’s complaint was not lost by mere fact of respondent
criminal complaint vs. Fil-Estate for violation of PD 957 Caube’s death during pendency of the admin case.
in failing to construct & deliver to petitioner the condo The tribunal retains jurisdiction to pronounce him
unit – on the view that an administrative finding of innocent or guilty (Exec. Judge Loyao vs. Clerk of
violation must first be obtained before resort to criminal Court Caube, 402 SCRA 33).
prosecution – is wrong. Nothing in PD 957 expressly
requires prior administrative finding. Where the law is Prevailing doctrine: Admin jurisdiction can no longer
silent, the fundamental rule that the administrative case be exercised by Ombudsman if public officer has
is independent from criminal action fully applies (Chua already separated from the service prior to the filing of
vs. Ang, 598 SCRA 232). charges re illegal transfer of tax credit certificates.
Andutan was no longer a public servant at time the
Hierarchy of evidentiary values: Proof of guilt beyond case was filed (Ombudsman vs. Dep. Dir. Andutan,
reasonable doubt is the highest level (criminal cases), 07/27/11).
followed by clear & convincing evidence (ex. in
imputation of fraud), preponderance of evidence (civil Exception: When public officer resigned in bad faith, or
cases) and substantial evidence (admin cases), in that specifically, when resignation was in anticipation of
order (ERB vs. CA, 357 SCRA 30). charges (P1.4M shortage) to be filed vs. her (Cashier
A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial Pagano of Benguet v. Nazarro, 09/21/07).
question even if the same facts are attendant in the
admin proceedings (Gatchalian Talents Pool vs. The withdrawal of a complaint or desistance of
Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406) [acquitted in crim case] complainant will not automatically result to dismissal of
admin case. Complainant is a mere witness xxx.
Absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean an absence of any evidence for there is another The tribunal has an interest apart from complainant’s
class of evidence w/c, though insufficient to establish own in determining the truth & when necessary,
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is adequate in admin imposing sanctions vs. erring employees.
case (NIA Coordtr Ocampo vs. Ombudsman, 322
SCRA 22). Rule on anonymous complaints: such complaints do
not always justify outright dismissal, particularly when
[Criminal cases for estafa/falsification – training fee the allegations may be easily verified and established
of $9,600 – were dismissed by RTC; still dismissed by other competent evidence.
from service by Omb.]
Under “Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation”,
Administrative offenses do not prescribe. Stigma still elective officials cannot be subject to disciplinary action
attaches (Floria vs. Sunga, 368 SCRA 551). for administrative misconduct committed during a prior
term.
The dismissal of 2 criminal cases by the
Sandiganbayan and of several criminal complaints by Reasons for the rule:
the Ombudsman did not result in the absolution of the While a reelected official may no longer be held
petitioner from the administrative charges before administratively liable for signing a questionable
PAGC/Office of the Pres. which subsequently contract before his reelection, this will not prejudice the
dismissed him from service (Dr. Melendres, Exec. Dir. filing of any case other than administrative vs. him
of Lung Center of Phil. vs. PAGC, 8/15/12). (Cebu CM Alvin Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207).

Sec. 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription but the Doctrine cannot benefit appointive officer seeking
discretion given to the OMB not to conduct the elective office (Ombudsman vs. Torres, 566 SCRA
investigation if filed after 1 yr. from occurrence xxx 365).

ihipnghangin 6

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



Electorate’s condonation of prior admin infractions of b. its application would sacrifice justice to technicality.
reelected official cannot be extended to reappointed c. parties involved waived it or do not timely raised it
coterminous employees. This does not violate right to as a defense.
equal protection of law as there is no d. issue of citizenship
disenfranchisement of electorate or subversion of
sovereign will to speak of, in the case of reappointed PNP
coterminous employees. Since petitioners hold
appointive posts, they cannot claim mandate of Sec. 6, Art. XVl of 1987 Constitution - The State shall
electorate. Also, the unwarranted expansion would establish and maintain one police force, which shall be
provide civil servants w/ blanket immunity from admin national in scope and civilian in character, to be
liability, spawning abuse (Salumbides vs. OMB, administered and controlled by a national police
4/23/10). commission. The authority of local executives over the
police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.
The condonation doctrine is ABANDONED, but the
abandonment is PROSPECTIVE in effect… no basis The new police force under RA 6975 absorbed
for saying that the election of an official to a new term members of former NAPOLCOM, PC & INP, w/c were
fully absolves the official of any administrative liability abolished. RA 5750, w/c provides for qualifications,
arising from an offense committed during a prior term selection & appointment of civilian investigation agents
(Carpio-Morales vs. CA, GR 217126-27, 11/10/15). of CIS as well as police powers, has been superseded
[MR/Clarification filed by OMB denied with finality on by RA 6975. RA 6975 envisioned PNP as a single
4/12/16]. national police organization, composed entirely of
uniformed personnel, with one set of standards and
From 4/12/16 & onwards, Office of Ombudsman will no with its own retirement and disciplinary systems.
longer apply the doctrine, regardless of when admin Hence, police powers are reserved for uniformed PNP
infraction was committed, when complaint was filed, or personnel (Alunan vs. Asuncion, 323 SCRA 623).
when public official was re-elected.
Authority of local chief executives: one of operational
Aggrieved Party who may appeal the control & supervision (Sec. 62 RA 8551)
administrative decision
Sec.39(a), PD 807: Appeals, where allowable, shall be Power to direct, superintend & oversee police
made by the party adversely affected by the decision. investigation of crime, crime prevention activities;
direct employment & deployment of PNP elements to
CSC as aggrieved party may appeal the CA decision ensure public safety & effective maintenance of peace
to SC. By this ruling, SC abandoned & overruled prior & order w/in locality except 30 days xxx
decisions that the Civil Service Law does not PNP shall support AFP on matters involving
contemplate a review of decisions exonerating public suppression of insurgency thru info gathering &
officers from administrative charges (CSC vs. ordinary police functions, except where the Pres. calls
Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 426). on PNP to support the AFP in combat operations.

CSC decides on appeal all administrative disciplinary Power of PLEB to dismiss PNP members upon
cases involving the imposition of a penalty of citizen’s complaint under Sec. 42 of RA 6975 is
suspension for more than 30 days, or a fine in an concurrent with PNP Chief/regional directors under
amount exceeding 30 days’ salary, demotion, transfer Sec. 45.
or dismissal from service (Sec. 37 PD 807).
Appellate jurisdiction of NAPOLCOM thru NAB and
A party may elevate a decision of CSC before the CA RAB
thru petition for review under Rule 43 of Revised Rules Appeals from decision of NAPOLCOM should be with
of Court. DILG and then with CSC.
The Ombudsman has clear legal interest to intervene
in the petition for review on certiorari before the CA Criminal cases involving PNP members are w/in
(OMB vs. CT Samaniego, 564 SCRA 569). susp. 1yr exclusive jurisdiction of regular courts. Courts-martial
are not courts but are instrumentalities of executive
Gen. Rule: Decisions of administrative agencies have, power.
upon their finality, the binding effect of a final judgment
w/in purview of res judicata doctrine. Regional Police Director has prerogative to name the 5
eligibles for position of city police chief (3 for provincial
Exceptions to the res judicata doctrine: police chief) from a pool of eligible officers screened by
a. supervening events make it imperative to modify a the Senior Officers Promotion & Selection Board of the
final judgment to harmonize it with prevailing PNP w/o interference from local executives. The mayor
circumstances. has limited power to select one from among the list of

ihipnghangin 7

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



eligibles as police chief (Andaya vs. RTC, 319 SCRA
696). Cases

AFP The mention of petitioner’s name in the complaint for


An Act Strengthening Civilian Supremacy over the damages w/the RTC as Telcom Director, arising from
Military by Returning to Civil Courts the Jurisdiction the alleged malicious administrative suit vs.
over Certain Offenses involving AFP Members, Other respondent Raymundo, does not transform the action
Persons Subject to Military Law (RA 7055) into one vs. him in his official capacity (Dir. Pascual vs.
Judge Beltran, 505 SCRA 559).
General Rule: AFP members & other persons subject
to military law, who commit crimes penalized under OSG cannot represent a public official at any stage of
RPC (like coup d’etat), other special penal laws, or a criminal case or in a civil case for damages arising
local ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court. from a felony. A public official sued in a criminal case
Exception: Where the civil court, before arraignment, is actually sued in his personal capacity since the State
has determined the offense to be service connected, can never be the author of a wrongful act. Similarly,
then the offending soldier shall be tried by a court any pecuniary liability an official may be held to account
martial. in the civil suit is for his own account (Urbano vs.
Exception to the exception: Where the President, in the Chavez & Co vs. Chavez, 183 SCRA 347).
interest of justice, directs before arraignment that any
such crime shall be tried by the proper civil court. Assuming the PCGG has no authority to file the petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the dismissal by
Service-connected offenses are limited to those OMB of the graft complaint vs. Cojuangco et al, its
defined in the Articles of War (CA 408), violations of unauthorized filing was ratified and the defect was
which are triable by courts martial. The delineation of cured when the OSG signed as co-counsel for the RP
jurisdiction between civil courts and courts martial over in its Consolidated Reply (Republic vs. Desierto, 389
crimes committed by military personnel is necessary to SCRA 452).
preserve the peculiar nature of military justice system,
which is aimed at achieving the highest form of Ombudsman Constitutional Mandate
discipline to ensure the highest degree of military As protector of the people, OMB has the power,
efficiency. The charge vs. petitioners concerns their function and duty to act promptly on complaints filed in
alleged violation of their solemn oath to defend the any form or manner against public officials and to
Constitution & the duly constituted authorities, w/c is investigate any act or omission of any public official
service-connected (Lt. Gonzales et al vs. Abaya, 498 when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
SCRA 446). improper or inefficient.

OSG (PD 478; Bk lV, Admin Code) Powers & Functions:


OMB under Sec. 12, Art. Xl Const. is envisioned as
Gen. Rule: Solicitor General is the lawyer of the “protector of the people” vs. the inept, abusive, and
government, its agencies & officials. He represents a corrupt in Gov’t; to make the OMB an authority to
public official in all civil, criminal & special proceedings, directly check and guard vs. the ills, abuses and
when such proceedings arise from the latter’s acts in excesses of bureaucracy. As the OMB is expected as
his official capacity. an “activist watchman”, SC has upheld its actions,
though not squarely falling under the broad powers
Rule: Actions in the name of the RP or its granted it by Const. and RA 6770, if these are
instrumentality, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, consistent w/law and Const. (Gonzales vs. OP, GR
will be summarily dismissed. 196231, 01/28/2014).
Exceptions:
1. When the government office is adversely affected Need for Prompt Action:
by contrary stand of OSG (Orbos vs. CSC, 12 Sept. Delay of 3 years in PI violates accused’s right to due
1990) process xxx (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70)
2. SolGen deputizes legal officers xxx (Sec. 35, Ch. 6 yrs. (Angchangco vs. OMB, 2/13/97)
123. Bk lV, EO 292)
Const’l right to speedy disposition of cases extends to
Gen. Rule: SolGen can represent a public official in all all parties in all cases & in all proceedings, includ.
civil, criminal and special proceedings when such judicial & quasi-judicial hearings (Omb vs. Jurado, 561
proceedings arise from the latter’s acts in his official SCRA 135). No violation of due process [act occurred
capacity. in 1992; charged by FFB in 1997 & decision in 1999 –
Exception: Such official or agent is being charged 6 mos. susp. of Customs employee for neglect of duty.
criminally or being sued civilly for damages arising from No oppressive delay as he was not made to undergo
a felony. invest. proceed]

ihipnghangin 8

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



OMB must defer action on said complaint & refer the
OMB Jurisdiction: same to the SC for determination whether said judge
Jurisdiction encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, or employee had acted w/in scope of his administrative
misfeasance & nonfeasance committed by any officer duties (Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464).
during his tenure of office. OMB has no jurisdiction to investigate the alleged
“undue delay in disposition of criminal case” w/c
OMB is clothed w/authority to conduct PI & to involves determination whether the judge acted in
prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers & accord with Code of Judicial Conduct (Dolalas vs.
employees, not only w/in the jurisdiction of Ombudsman, 265 SCRA 819).
Sandiganbayan, but those w/in jurisdiction of regular
courts (Uy vs. Ombudsman, 03/20/01). Before a civil or criminal action vs. a judge for violation
of Art. 204 (Knowingly rendering unjust judgment) &
A money claim vs. a councilor is w/in jurisdiction of Art. 205 RPC can be entertained, there must be a final
court, not the OMB. If money claim is vs. City Govt, the & authoritative judicial declaration that the decision is
claim is w/in the jurisdiction of SP or other proper unjust (Fuentes vs. OMB).
government agency, but not OMB (Orcullo vs. The criminal case filed vs. MCTC Judge Garcia was in
Gervacio, 314 SCRA 452). no way related to the performance of his duties as a
judge. It is for Reckless Imprudence resulting to
OMB authority is shared or concurrent with similarly homicide of RPC and thus the OMB had jurisdiction to
authorized gov’t agencies (Sanchez vs. Demetriou, conduct PI & file information in court (Garcia vs. Miro,
227 SCRA 637). 582 SCRA 127).

DOJ is not precluded from investigating the case, but if Cases on Preventive Suspension
the case falls under exclusive jurisdiction of Meaning of phrase “under his authority” in RA 6770: all
Sandiganbayan, then OMB may in exercise of its officials under investigation by his office regardless of
primary jurisdiction take over at any stage the the branch of government in w/c they are employed
investigation of such case (Honasan vs. DOJ Panel , (Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207)
04/13/04). The fact that he holds a SG 31 position so
that the case vs. him falls exclusively w/in 82 days prev. susp./ 2 mos. susp. (Yabut vs. Office of
Sandiganbayan jurisdiction does not by itself remove Ombudsman, 233 SCRA 311) Buenaseda vs. Flavier,
from the DOJ Panel the authority to investigate the 226 SCRA 646 OMB vs. Customs Dep. Commissioner
coup d’etat charge against him (id.) Valera, 471 SCRA 718

Under OMB-DOJ MOA dated 3/29/12 (w/c modifies Finality and Execution of Decision
Joint OMB-DOJ Circular of 10/05/95), OMB has Decision is final, executory and unappealable if
primary jurisdiction in conduct of PI & inquest over respondent is acquitted, or penalty is reprimand,
cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan. suspension of not more than one month, or fine
equivalent to one month salary.
Both have concurrent jurisdiction over cases w/in *Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753
jurisdiction of RTC/MTC; but the office where such
complaint is filed for PI acquires jurisdiction to All other cases, appeal to CA on verified petition for
exclusion of the other; provided that OMB may refer review within 15 days (not to SC on petition for
any complaint to DOJ. Also, the prosecution of cases certiorari under Sec. 27 RA 6670 w/c is
investigated by OMB but referred to DOJ for unconstitutional).
prosecution is under DOJ control.
Remedy from OMB decision exonerating respondent
Who are not subject to OMB Disciplinary Authority? (LWUA Admtr. Reyes vs. Belisario, 596 SCRA 31)
Impeachable Officials
* In re: Raul M. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 Absence of statutory right to appeal the exoneration of
Members of Congress (Sec. 16, Art. Vl) resp. in admin case does not mean complainant is with
OMB vs. DO Mojica, 452 SCRA 714 no remedy. Here, resps. LWUA officers wrongly filed a
Judiciary (Sec. 6, Art. Vlll: exclusively vests in SC petition for review under Rule 43, w/c appeal is not
admin supervision over all courts & court personnel) allowed in exoneration under OMB law & rules, instead
* Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 46 of petition under Rule 65. However, since their petition
* Caoibes vs. Alumbres, 07/19/01 for review addressed the grave abuse of discretion that
* Fuentes vs. Ombudsman, 368 SCRA 36 thre OMB committed in exonerating Reyes, the SC
* Garcia vs. Miro, 582 SCRA 127 (2009) exercised liberality in recognizing the CA petition as
having effect of Rule 65 petition ( Reyes vs. Belisario,
Where a criminal complaint vs. a judge or court 596 SCRA 31).
employee arises from this administrative duties, the

ihipnghangin 9

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



OMB unappealable decisions are final & executory, eventual appeal (Villasenor vs. Omb. & QC Mayor,
and they are: (1) respondent is absolved of charge; (2) 6/4/14). [Manor Hotel fire Aug.18, 2001]
penalty is public censure or reprimand; (3) suspension
of not more than 1 month; & (4) fine equiv. to 1 month’s Cases on Preliminary Investigation
salary. Petitioners may not compel OMB to order production of
documents if in his judgment such documents are not
OMB appealable decisions are those w/c fall outside necessary xxx (Mamburao vs. OMB, 344 SCRA 818).
said enumeration, and may be appealed to CA under Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721
Rule 43 of Rules of Court, w/in 15 days from receipt of Garcia vs. Primo, 397 SCRA 41
written notice of the decision or order denying the MR SC is not a trier of facts and as such cannot review the
(Villasenor & Mesa vs. Ombudsman & Mayor Herbert evidence adduced by parties before OMB on issue of
Bautista, 6/4/14). absence or presence of probable cause.

Power of the Ombudsman to determine & impose Where there appears to be grave abuse of discretion
administrative liability is not merely recommendatory on the part of the OMB in dismissing the case – by
but actually mandatory (Atty. Ledesma vs. CA, 503 ignoring vital pieces of evidence submitted by PCGG
Phil. 396). xxx, the SC reversed the dismisal of the OMB and
directed the filing of the proper information vs. Disini et
The fact that the refusal w/o just cause of any officer to al. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
comply w/the order of the Ombudsman to penalize an evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has
erring officer is a ground for disciplinary action been committed by the respondents (PCGG vs.
(Sec.15(3) RA 6770) is a strong indication that OMB’s Desierto, 22 January 2007).
recommendation is not merely advisory but mandatory
w/in the bounds of law (Fajardo vs. Ombudsman, Effect on OMB re COA’s Non-Finding of Liability:
8/23/12). COA’s approval of a government official’s
disbursements only relates to the administrative aspect
Effect of Appeal on Decision of the matter of his accountability but it does not
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being foreclose the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate
executory. In case penalty is suspension or removal and determine whether there is a crime to be
and respondent wins the appeal, he shall be prosecuted for which such official is answerable.
considered as being under preventive suspension and While COA may regard the official to have substantially
he shall be paid the salary (OMB Admin. Order No. 17 complied with it’s accounting rules, this fact is not
dated 09/07/03). sufficient to dismiss the criminal case. (Aguinaldo vs.
Sandiganbayan, 265 SCRA 121)
A decision of the Ombudsman shall be executed as a
matter of course. Failure or refusal to comply with the The fact that petitioners’ accounts and vouchers had
OMB Order shall be a ground for disciplinary action passed in audit is no ground to enjoin the fiscal from
(Sec 26 RA 6770). conducting PI to determine their criminal liability for
malversation (Ramos vs. Aquino). A finding of probable
Immediate Execution of Administrative Decisions cause does not derive its veracity from the COA
The decision of the Ombudsman imposing six months’ findings but from the OMB’s independent
suspension without pay upon Mayor Buencamino for determination. Although the COA Report may aid the
abuse of authority is immediately executory under AO OMB in conducting its PI, such report is not a
No. 17 of the Ombudsman (Buencamino vs. CA, 520 prerequisite (Dimayuga vs. OMB, 495 SCRA 461).
SCRA 747).
Remedies from a probable cause finding:
The Ombudsman’s decision imposing the penalty of Only one MR or reinvestigation allowed within five (5)
suspension for one year is immediately executory days from notice, with leave of court where information
pending appeal (OMB vs. CT Samaniego, 632 SCRA has already been filed in court.
140).
Validity of information is not affected by lack of notice
Villasenor’s filing of MR does not stay the immediate of adverse resolution to the respondent (Kuizon vs.
implementation of Ombud’s order of dismissal, since “a Desierto, 354 SCRA 158).
decision of the Office of Ombudsman in administrative
cases shall be executed as a matter of course” under Filing of MR/reinvestigation does not prevent the
Sec. 7, Rule lll of AO No. 07 (Omb. Rules of immediate filing of information in court (Pecho vs.
Procedure), as amended by AO No. 17. No vested right Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116).
would be violated as he would be considered under
prev. suspension, and entitled to the salary & Court of Appeals; No Authority Over OMB Resolutions
emoluments he did not receive in event he wins his in Criminal Cases.

ihipnghangin 10

A D MI N L AW 2 N D E X A M 2 0 1 7 -2 0 1 8



Date of hiring is not substantial distinction & is not
The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and among factors in SSL/IRR (Cruz vs. COA, 368 SCRA
decisions of the OMB in administrative disciplinary 85).
cases only – it cannot review the orders or decisions of
the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative Central Bank
cases. Since the CA has no jurisdiction over decisions Actions of the MB in proceedings on insolvency are
of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, its ruling directing final & executory under CB Act and may not be set
the withdrawal of the criminal case filed by the aside except upon convincing proof the action is plainly
Ombudsman before the RTC against respondent arbitrary and made in bad faith.
POEA employee Fung is void (Golangco vs. Fung, 504
SCRA 321). CB can close down a bank for insolvency w/o prior
notice & hearing under “close now and hear later”
Forfeiture Proceedings for ill-gotten wealth policy & place under receivership even before the bank
PCGG is empowered to bring proceedings for forfeiture could disprove CB findings in order to prevent the
of property allegedly unlawfully acquired before Feb. unwarranted dissipation of bank assets and protect its
25, 1986, while power to investigate ill-gotten wealth depositors, creditors, stockholders & the public.
acquired after said date is vested in the Ombudsman Conditions: examination; report to MB; prima facie
(Rep. vs. Sandiganbayan, 237 SCRA 242) showing of probable loss to depositors or creditors.

The Ombudsman is without authority to initiate


forfeiture proceedings for recovery of ill-gotten or
unexplained wealth amassed prior to 2/25/86.
However, the Ombudsman has authority to investigate
cases for forfeiture or recovery of such ill-gotten wealth
amassed even before said date pursuant to his general
investigatory power under Sec. 15(1) of RA 6770
(Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, 625 SCRA 13)

COA
Constitutional mandate [Art. lX D, Sec.2(1)&(2)]: a)
examine, audit & settle all accounts pertaining to
revenue & receipts of, & expenditures or uses of funds
xxx b) promulgate rules for prev. & disallowance xxx

Coverage of COA’s jurisdiction:


COA and Central Bank have concurrent jurisdiction to
examine and audit gov’t banks, but COA audit prevails
for 2 reasons (COA is constitutionally mandated
auditor & CB has no power to allow/disallow
expenditures xxx).

Entitlement of informer’s reward under NIRC as


determined by BIR and DOF, although conclusive on
the executive agencies, is not binding on COA
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. COA, 218
SCRA 204)

COA cannot disallow the payment of back wages to


employees, w/c had been decreed pursuant to a final
CSC decision (Cagatin vs. COA, 21 March 2000).

COA disallowance of extension of foreign consultant’s


services embodied in the KFW foreign loan for the
Urban Housing Project is proper; prohibiting
unnecessary expenses of public funds is beyond
compromise (NHA vs. COA, 226 SCRA 65).

COA classification as to who were entitled to the social


amelioration benefits & excluding those SRA
employees hired after 10/31/89 has no legal basis.

ihipnghangin 11