Quasi Judicial Power and Judicial Review Class Notes

Quasi-Judicial
Power
(Adjudicatory Power)
References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

2005 ed.; CRUZ. Philippine Administra@ve
Law. 2007 ed. DE LEON. Administra@ve
Quasi-Judicial Power
The QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER is the power of the
administra@ve agency to determine ques@ons of fact to
which the legisla@ve policy is to apply, in accordance with
the standards laid down by the law itself.

This involves:
1.  the discre@on of officers or administra@ve tribunal in
gathering and ascertaining evidence
2.  ascertain the existence of facts on the basis of the
evidence gathered
3.  applica@on of the law itself on the facts so gathered.

Cases
1.  Cariño v. CHR (Dec.2, 1991)
2.  Eastern Telecommunica@ons Philippines, Inc.
v. Interna@onal Communica@ons Corp. (July
23, 2004)
3.  PCGG v. Judge Peña (April 12, 1998)

Quasi-judicial v. Judicial
The judicial process focuses on the ques@on of law,
with the ques@ons of fact being regarded as of
secondary importance only.
Even if not judges, administra@ve officers can
interpret and apply the law to the facts as
ascertained by them because this func@on is
necessary to the discharge of their primary func@on
of regula@on. However, as they are not judges,
their determina@on of legal ques@ons is subject to
review by the courts of jus@ce.
Quasi-judicial v. Quasi-legisla@ve
Quasi-Judicial Quasi-Legisla=ve
Futurity and Enforcement of liabili@es Operates in the future.
retrospec=vity as they stand on present or
past facts and under
exis@ng laws.
Generality and Applies to specific Governs the public at large.
par=cularity situa@ons or to specific
persons or en@@es, or
pertains exclusively to a
named en@ty and to no
other.

Doctrine of Exhaus=on of Applicable in ques@oning Not applicable in
Administra=ve Remedies an act performed pursuant ques@oning the validity or
to quasi-judicial func@on. cons@tu@onality of a rule
References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law. or regula@on.
Quasi-Judicial Quasi-Legisla=ve
Requirement of no=ce and Required in adjudica@on of Not required in the
hearing controversies at least the issuance of rules and
opportunity to be heard on regula@ons unless required
the part of the affected by the statute making the
person as a prerequisite for delega@on.
the validity of the decision.
Doctrine of Primary Applicable Not applicable
Jurisdic=on

Examples of exercise
of quasi-judicial power
1.  Licensing, enabling, or approving
The ac@on of an administra@ve agency in gran@ng or denying, or in
suspending or revoking a license, permit, franchise, or cer@ficate of
public convenience and necessity is quasi-judicial if it is dependent
upon the ascertainment of facts by the administra@ve agency.
Where a statute empowers an agency to revoke a license for non-
compliance with or viola@on of agency regula@ons, the administra@ve
act is of a judicial nature, since it depends upon the ascertainment of
the existence of certain past or present facts upon which a decision is
to be made and rights and liabili@es determined.

2. Fixing rates and charges
Where the rules and the rates imposed apply
exclusively to a par@cular party, based upon a
finding of fact, then its func@on is quasi-judicial
in character.

Acts that are not judicial
in nature
a.  Audi@ng accounts of a receiver of public moneys;
b.  Determina@ons of the CSC in respect of classifica@ons and grading of posi@ons in the civil service;
c.  Passing upon a pe@@on to call an elec@on;
d.  The func@on of drad boards;
e.  Inves@ga@on for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of a tax return;
f.  The parole of prisoners, at least so long as the dura@on of the sentence is not affected, and the
revoca@on of parole;
g.  The transfer of prisoners from one place of imprisonment to another;
h.  Making a preliminary finding of probable cause for the arrest of the accused;
i.  The ini@al determina@on of whether certain things cons@tute public nuisances;
j.  Closing and taking charge of banks found to be insolvent or unsafe and assessment of their
stockholders;
k.  Determina@on whether or not there had been a viola@on of the terms of collec@ve bargaining
agreement;
l.  The issuance of a warrant of distraint or levy in tax cases and certain other administra@ve
enforcement devices; and
m.  Deporta@on of alien.
Condi@ons
•  The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial
power requires compliance with two
condi@ons, to wit:

1.  Jurisdic=on must be properly acquired by the
administra@ve body.
2.  Due process must be observed in the conduct
of the proceedings.
Jurisdic@on
JURISDICTION may be simply defined as the
competence of an office or body to act on a given
mafer or decide a certain ques@on.
The grant of original jurisdic@on on a quasi-judicial
agency is not implied. The extent to which an
administra@ve agency ay exercise such powers
depend largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of
the statute crea@ng or empowering such agency.
Case: Ilocos Sur Electric Coopera=ve, Inc. v. NLRC
(February 1, 1995)
Rules of Procedure

•  Where an administra@ve body is expressly granted the power of adjudica@on, it is
deemed also vested with the implied power to prescribe the rules to be observed
in the conduct of its proceedings. Rules of procedure of quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effec@ve unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
•  The Rules of Court are suppletory to rules of procedure of quasi-judicial agencies.
This means that any deficiency or absence of applicable provision in the rules of
procedure of administra@ve agencies governing a given situa@on may, and must
be, filled up by the per@nent provisions of the Rules of Court.
•  In deciding administra@ve ques@ons, administra@ve bodies or officials generally
enjoy wide discre@on. Technical rules of procedure are not strictly enforced, and
due process of law in the strict judicial sense is not indispensable. It is sufficient
that the substan@ve due process requirement of fairness and reasonableness be
observed.
•  Case: Philippine Lawyers Associa=on v. Agrava (Feb. 16, 1959)

Forum Shopping
Forum shopping is the improper prac@ce of going
from one court to another in the hope of securing a
favorable relief in one court which another court
has denied or the filing of repe@@ous suits or
p r o c e e d i n g s i n d i ff e r e n t c o u r t s
concerningsubstan@ally the same subject mafer.
There is also forum shopping whenever, as a result
of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion in another forum, other than
appeal or cer@orari.
The Subpoena Power

The power to issue subpoena and subpoena
duces tecum is not inherent in administra@ve
bodies. It is sefled that these bodies may
summon witnesses and require the produc@on
of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and
always only in connec@on with the mafer they
are authorized to inves@gate.
The Contempt Power

Like the subpoena power, the power to punish
for contempt is essen@ally judicial and cannot
be claimed as an inherent right by the
administra@ve body. To be validly exercised, it
must be expressly conferred upon the body and
addi@onally, must be used only in connec@on
with its quasi-judicial as dis@nguished from its
purely administra@ve or rou@nary func@ons.
Due Process
•  No=ce and Hearing
The right to no@ce and hearing is essen@al to
due process and its non-observance will as a
rule invalidate the administra@ve proceedings.
Cases:
1.  CSC v. Lucas (January 21, 1999)
2.  Lincoln Gerard, Inc. v. NLRC (July 23, 1990)

The essence of due process in administra@ve proceedings
is the opportunity to explain one’s side or a chance to
seek reconsidera=on of the ac=on or ruling complained
of.

What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous
no@ce but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of
opportunity to be heard. Such opportunity to be heard
may be ader the rendi@on of a decision adverse to a
party, as by his filing of a mo@on for reconsidera@on
thereof or by appealing therefrom.
Excep@ons
The denial of the right to no@ce and hearing will render the administra@ve
proceedings null and void for denial of due process. Excep@ons:

1.  urgency of immediate ac@on
2.  tenta@veness of the administra@ve ac@on (which does not preclude the
enjoyment of the right at a later @me without prejudice to the person
affected)
3.  the fact that the right had previously been offered but not claimed
4.  summary abatement of a nuisance per se
5.  preven@ve suspension of a public servant facing administra@ve charges
6.  padlocking of filthy restaurants or theatres showing obscene movies
which are immediate threats to public health and decency
7.  cancella@on of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecu@on
8.  summary distraint and levy of the proper@es of a delinquent taxpayer
9.  replacement of a temporary or ac@ng appointee

Administra=ve Due Process
While administra@ve determina@ons of
contested cases are by their nature judicial,
there is no requirement for strict adherence to
technical rules as are observed in truly judicial
proceedings.


Cardinal rights or principles to be
observed in administra=ve proceedings
Case: Ang Tibay v. CIR (February 27, 1940)

Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administra=ve proceedings --
1.  The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the
party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in
support thereof. "The liberty and property of the ci?zen shall be protected by the
rudimentary requirements of fair play.”

2.  Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to
adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the
tribunal must consider the evidence presented. "The right to adduce evidence,
without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain.
Such right is conspicuously fu?le if the person or persons to whom the evidence is
presented can thrust it aside without no?ce or considera?on.”

3.  While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obliga@on to decide right, it
does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having
something to support its decision.
4.  Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence
must be "substan=al." It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and
equity shall not be controlling. But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administra@ve
procedure does not go far as to jus@fy orders without a basis in evidence having ra@onal
proba@ve force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not cons@tute substan@al
evidence.
5.  The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the par@es affected.
6.  The Court of Industrial Rela@ons or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
independent considera=on of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept
the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
7.  The Court of Industrial Rela@ons should, in all controversial ques@ons, render its decision
in such a manner that the par@es to the proceeding can know the various issues involved,
and the reasons for the decision rendered.


Basic principles in administra@ve
inves@ga@ons
Case: Montemayor v. Bundalian (July 1, 2003)

1.  The burden is on the complainant to prove by substan@al evidence the allega@ons in his
complaint.
2.  In reviewing administra@ve decisions of the execu@ve branch of the government, the
findings of facts made therein are to be respected so long as they are supported by
substan@al evidence. Hence, it is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflic@ng
evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise subs@tute its judgment for
that of the administra@ve agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence.
3.  Administra@ve decisions in mafers within the execu@ve jurisdic@on can only be set aside
on proof of gross abuse of discre@on, fraud, or error of law. These principles negate the
power of the reviewing court to re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence in an
administra@ve case as if originally ins@tuted therein, and do not authorize the court to
receive addi@onal evidence that was not submifed to the administra@ve agency
concerned.
4.  It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the administra@ve ques@on be
impar=al to ensure a fair decision. The judge must not only be impar@al but must also
appear to be impar@al as an added assurance to the par@es that his decision will be just.

Cases:
1.  Zambales Chromite v. CA (Nov. 7, 1979)
2.  Pefianco v. Moral (January 19, 2000)

Due process in an administra@ve context does not require
trial-type proceedings similar to those in the courts of jus@ce;
and need not necessarily include the right to cross-
examina@on. The requirement of no@ce and hearing does not
connote full adversarial proceedings. Submission of posi@on
papers may be sufficient for as long as the par@es thereto are
given the opportunity to be heard.

Case: UP Board of Regents v. CA (August 31, 1999)
Elements of Due Process
1.  There must be a court or a tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the mafer
before it.
2.  Jurisdic@on must be lawfully acquired over the
person of the defendant or property which is
the subject of the proceedings.
3.  The defendant must be given an opportunity to
be heard.
4.  Judgment must be rendered upon lawful
hearing.
Enforcement of Decisions
It is established that administra@ve agencies that have not been
conferred the power to enforce their quasi-judicial decisions may
invoke court ac@on for the purpose.

Under the Administra@ve Code, the agency shall decide each case
within 30 days following its submission. A case is deemed submifed
for decision ader both par@es shall have concluded presenta@on of
their evidence or upon the filing of their respec@ve memoranda, if
required or if they so ask and the same is granted.

“Shall” is merely directory. Failure of the agency to decide the case
within 30 days does not deprive it of its jurisdic@on to thereader
resolve it, nor render such decision invalid. But such failure to decide
within 30 days may render the officer administra@vely liable therefor.

•  The Administra@ve Code requires that “Every decision
rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in
wri@ng and shall state clearly and dis@nctly the facts
and the law on which it is based.”
•  The decision of the agency shall become final and
executory 15 days ader the receipt of a copy thereof
by the party adversely affected unless within that
period an administra@ve appeal or judicial review, if
proper, has been perfected. One mo@on for
reconsidera@on may be filed, which shall suspend the
running of the said period.
Promulga@on
A decision of an administra@ve officer or agency, in
the exercise of quasi-judicial power, becomes
binding only ader it is validly promulgated.

Promulga=on means the delivery of the decision to
the clerk of court for filing and publica@on. It is the
process by which a decision is published, officially
announced, made known to the public or delivered
to the clerk of court for filing, coupled with no@ce
to the par@es or their counsel.
Res Judicata
The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a mafer once
judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial
and quasi-judicial acts of public, execu@ve or administra@ve officers and
boards ac@ng within their jurisdic@on as to the judgments of courts having
general judicial powers.
•  Requisites:
a)  Final judgment or order;
b)  Jurisdic@on of the court (or agency) over the subject mafer of the
par@es; and
c)  Iden@ty of par@es, iden@ty of subject mafer, and iden@ty of cause of
ac@on.
Res judicata is not applicable:
1.  Where the two cases do not place iden@cal causes of ac@on and issues
although the ac@ons so filed are based on the same essen@al facts;
2.  Where the agency does not possess a quasi-judicial power.

Judicial Review

Judicial Review
•  The term judicial review may embrace any form of
judicial scru@ny of a mafer which arises when such
ac@on is brought into ques@on before a court.
•  It is ordinarily available only for final administra@ve
ac@on.
•  Its underlying purpose is to assure – on the pe@@on of
interested par@es – by the interven@on of ordinary
courts that administra@ve power is exercised according
to law and that agencies do not go beyond their
statutory or cons@tu@onal powers in carrying out their
tasks.
•  It is the policy of the courts not to interfere with
the ac@ons of government agencies entrusted
with the regula@on of ac@vi@es coming under
their special knowledge and training or specific
field of exper@se unless there is a clear showing
of capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
or grave abuse of discre@on amoun@ng to lack or
excess of jurisdic@on.
•  Ques@ons of law or validity are for the court,
whole ques@ons of fact, policy, or discre@on are
determinable by the administra@ve agency.
Right to judicial review
•  An administra@ve decision may be appealed to the courts of jus@ce only if
the Cons@tu@on or the law permits it or if the issues to be reviewed
involve ques@ons of law.
•  Where judicial review is provided in the statute, the right of appeal to the
courts is to be determined by looking at the statute, the valid regula@ons
promulgated pursuant to it, and proven administra@ve prac@ce throwing
light upon their meaning.
•  Appeal is of a statutory origin; it is not a requirement of due process. As a
rule, therefore, the administra@ve decision may be validly rendered final
and inappealable at the administra@ve lever without allowing the
aggrieved party a final resort to the courts of jus@ce.
•  The fact, however, that a statute does not provide for judicial relief or
review does not mean that there is no power or right of relief or review in
a proper case under the general powers and jurisdic@ons of the courts.

How appeal is made
•  This applies to agencies such as CSC, SEC, Land
Registra@on Authority, SSC, OP, CAB, NTC, DAR,
GSIS, ECC, etc.
•  Where to appeal – Court of Appeals
•  Period of appeal – 15 days from no@ce of the
award, judgment, order or resolu@on, or of the
denial of the MR. Only one MR is allowed.
•  How appeal is taken – by filing a verified pe@@on
for review and payment of docket fees.
Substan@al Evidence Rule
•  In reviewing administra@ve decisions, the reviewing court
cannot examine or weigh once more the factual basis and
sufficiency of the evidence submifed before the
administra@ve body and subs@tute its own judgment for
that of said body or to receive addi@onal evidence that was
not submifed to the administra@ve agency concerned.
•  The general rule is that the court will not disturb on appeal
the factual findings of administra@ve agencies ac@ng within
the parameters of their own competence so long as such
findings are supported by substan@al evidence, albeit such
evidence may not be overwhelming or merely
preponderant, or nega@vely stated, it is sufficient that
findings of fact are not shown to be unsupported by
evidence.
Doctrine of Finality
of Administra@ve Ac@on
•  Courts are reluctant to interfere with ac@on of an
administra@ve agency prior to its comple@on or
finality.
•  It is only ader judicial review is no longer premature
that a court may ascertain in proper cases whether the
administra@ve ac@on or findings are not in viola@on of
law, or are free from fraud or imposi@on or find
substan@al support from the evidence.
•  Only ader the facts shall have been properly
determined and a decision has been rendered, may
the appropriate judicial power be availed of by the
party who feels aggrieved thereby.
Excep@ons to Doctrine of Finality
Judicial review shall be applicable even where there is not a “final
order”:
a)  To an interlocutory order affec@ng the merits of controversy;
b)  To grant relief to preserve the status quo pending further ac@on
by the administra@ve agency;
c)  When it is essen@al to the protec@on of the rights asserted from
the injury threatened;
d)  Where an administra@ve officer assumes to act in viola@on of the
Cons@tu@on and other laws;
e)  Where such order is not reviewable in any other way and the
complainant will suffer great and obvious damage if the order is
carried out; and
f)  To an order made in excess of power, contrary to specific
prohibi@on in the statute governing the agency and thus
opera@ng as a depriva@on of a right assured by the statute.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdic@on
•  This is also known as doctrine of prior resort, exclusive
administra3ve jurisdic3on, or preliminary resort.
•  The doctrine applies only where the administra@ve agency
exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory func@on.
•  Under the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdic@on, courts cannot
or will not determine a controversy involving a ques@on
which is within the jurisdic@on of the administra@ve
tribunal prior to the resolu@on of that ques@on by the
administra@ve tribunal, where the ques@on demands the
exercise of sound administra@ve discre@on requiring the
special knowledge, experience and services of the
administra@ve tribunal to determine technical and intricate
mafers of fact.
•  Where the controversy is ini@ally lodged with the administra@ve body, it
behooves a court, in the interest of good order, to suspend its ac@on on
the case before it pending the outcome of the administra@ve proceedings.
•  The applica@on of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the case.
It need only be suspended un@l ader the mafers within the competence
of the administra@ve body are threshed out and determined.
•  The applica@on of the Doctrine cannot be waived.
•  However, for reasons of equity, in cases where jurisdic@on is lacking, this
Court has ruled that failure to raise the issue of non-compliance with the
doctrine of primary administra@ve jurisdic@on at an opportune @me may
bar a subsequent filing of a mo@on to dismiss based on that ground by
way of laches.
•  Thus, where a party par@cipated in the proceedings and the issue of non-
compliance was raised only as an aderthought at the final stage of appeal,
the party invoking it may be estopped from doing so. (Republic v. Gallo
(Jan. 17, 2018))

•  Reasons for applica@on of the doctrine:
1.  To take full advantage of administra@ve expertness; and
2.  To afain uniformity of applica@on of regulatory laws.
•  The doctrine is applicable where elements of
a d m i n i s t r a @ v e d i s c r e @ o n a r e o d e n i m p o r t a n t
considera@ons, such as in cases involving issuance and
revoca@on of licenses and the enforcement of licensing
rules.
•  Prior resort to an agency should be limited to ques@ons of
fact and ques@ons requiring the skills of administra@ve
specialists. Ques@ons of law may appropriately be
determined in the first instance by the court.
Case: Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA (1990)
Doctrine of Exhaus@on of
Administra@ve Remedies
•  Under the doctrine of exhaus@on of administra@ve remedies, a
party must first avail of all administra@ve processes available
before seeking the courts' interven@on. The administra@ve officer
concerned must be given every opportunity to decide on the
mafer within his or her jurisdic@on.
•  Failing to exhaust administra@ve remedies affects the party's cause
of ac@on as these remedies refer to a precedent condi@on which
must be complied with prior to filing a case in court.
•  However, failure to observe the doctrine of exhaus@on of
administra@ve remedies does not affect the court's jurisdic@on. The
only effect of non- compliance with this rule is that it will deprive
the complainant of a cause of ac@on, which is a ground for a
mo@on to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper @me, this ground is
deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case
and try it.

Applica@on
•  The classic example of failure to exhaust
administra@ve remedies is the failure to appeal
from an administra@ve decision to a higher
administra@ve authority or tribunal within the
administra@ve system.
•  Only judicial review of decisions of administra@ve
bodies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial
func@on (adjudica@ve, not rule-making or
legisla@ve power) is subject to the exhaus@on
doctrine.
Excep@ons
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administra@ve act is patently illegal, amoun@ng to lack of
jurisdic@on;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inac?on that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is rela@vely small so as to make the rule imprac@cal
and oppressive;
(e) where the ques@on involved is purely legal and will ul@mately have to be decided
by the courts of jus@ce;
(f) where judicial interven@on is urgent;
(g) when its applica@on may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) when the issue of non-exhaus@on of administra@ve remedies has been rendered
moot;
(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(k) when strong public interest is involved; and,
(l) in quo warranto proceedings.
Exhaus@on doctrine v. Primary
jurisdic@on doctrine
1.  The doctrine of EAR is invoked as a defense to a judicial review of
an administra@ve ac@on not yet deemed as complete. Whereas,
the doctrine of PJ applies where a ques@on is presented to the
court as an original mafer, rather than a mafer of review.
2.  The doctrine of EAR applies where the claim or mafer is
cognizable in the first instance by an administra@ve agency alone.
Whereas, the doctrine of PJ applies where where both the court
and administra@ve agency have jurisdic@on to pass on a ques@on.
3.  Under the doctrine of EAR, judicial interference is withheld (or
dismissed without prejudice) un@l the administra@ve process has
run its course. Whereas, under the doctrine of PJ, judicial process
is withheld pending referral of such issues to the administra@ve
agency.


Quasi Judicial Power and Judicial Review Class Notes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Quasi Judicial Power and Judicial Review Class Notes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Quasi-Judicial

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

References: AGPALO. Administra@ve Law.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi