Administrative Law Reviewer

I. HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Development of Administrative Law as a distinct field of public law 1. Factors responsible for the emergence of administrative agencies Pangasinan Transportation v Public Service Commission (J. Laurel) 1. growing complexities of modern life 2. multiplication of number of subjects needing government regulation 3. increased difficulty in administering law (Stone): 1. 2. 3. the 3 branches of government lack: time expertise organizational aptitude for effective and continuing regulations of new developments in society so administrative agencies were created, out of necessity, to serve as a catch basin for the 3 branches

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
*MERALCO V PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. FACTS: Meralco wanted SC to serve as arbitrators to determine the amount of toll that they would collect HELD: SC should strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers EXPRESSLY or IMPLIEDLY conferred on it by the CONSTITUTION. -The SC and its members should not nor cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any task, or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with administering judicial functions. -A board of arbitrators is not a court it possesses none of the jurisdiction granted by the Consti to SC
*powers of SC should only be confined to what is in the CONSTITUTION

2. The doctrine of separation of powers and the constitutional position of administrative agencies Doctrine of separation of powers: -checks and balances -sovereign powers vested in 3 branches of government -basic powers of government should be kept separate from each other -dispersing the centers of authority to prevent ABSOLUTISM Re: administrative agencies: administrative agencies perform quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial functions though it is under the executive branch, therefore, it seems that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers. However, according to Stone, since the 3 branches lack time, expertise and organizational aptitude for effective and continuing regulation of new developments in society, the separation of powers should not be strictly construed for the system not to collapse the administrative agencies would serve as a catch basin for the 3 branches. B. Definitions of Terms (DAVIS definition) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Branch of public law Dealing with the doctrines and principles governing POWERS and PROCEDURES of ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ESPECIALLY including JUDICIAL REVIEW of Administrative action ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES Any governmental ORGAN or AUTHORITY Other than the court or legislative body Which affects the RIGHTS of PRIVATE PARTIES Through RULE-MAKING and ADJUDICATION *PANGASINAN TRANSPORT INC v PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FACTS: PTI was applying for an authorization to operate additional busses, which was granted by the PBC subject to 2 conditions (that the certificate would only be valid for 25 years and that the government could acquire the said buses after just compensation) in accordance with CA 146. PTI wanted CA 146 to be declared void. HELD: -CA 146 is constitutional. -The PSC could issue the said orders as a valid delegation of legislative powers (consider the FACTORS mentioned above); it was a valid SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION rules promulgated must be GERMANE and CONSISTENT with the law it seeks to implement -the said orders were in accordance with public interest, made under police powers of the state -case remanded for due process violations
*importance: on factors which contributed to the rise of administrative agencies

NOBLEJAS v TEEHANKEE FACTS: Noblejas, Land Registration Commissioner, was charged with improperly approving subdivision plans. Since Land Registration Commissioners enjoy the SAME COMPENSATION as that of CFI Judges, Noblejas contends that he should be investigated and dismissed like CFI judges. HELD: Land Registration Commissioner DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME RANK as CFI Judges 1. it would mean placing upon the SC the duty of investigating and disciplining all these officials whose functions are purely executive and EXPRESSLY placed under the Presidents control and supervision 2. if ever there is such a grant, it would be unconstitutional since it would be violative of the doctrine of separation of powers and would diminish the control of the PRESIDENT over executive officials
*It doesnt mean that when an executive officer has the same compensation and privileges as a judiciary officer that they have the same rank and should be under the same branch of government

GARCIA v MACARAIG FACTS: There was a DISCIPLINARY ACTION vs a CFI Judge with the DOJ for allegedly receiving his salary even if he has not assumed his duties yet. BEFORE, CFI Judges were under the supervision of the DOJ. The said judge was not able to assume his office because he DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE YET! HELD: Administrative complaint should be dismissed -NO judge should place himself in a position where his actuations would be subject to review and prior approval and, worse still, review, before they can have any legal effect, by any authority other than the CA or the SC
*a co-equal branch cannot exercise authority over a co-equal branch

*IN RE: RODOLFO MANZANO FACTS: Judge Manzano requested SC to approve his appointment as a member of the Provincial Committee on Justice, which exercises administrative functions HELD: Request denied ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS: involve the REGULATION and CONTROL over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the PROMULGATION of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy or such as are designated to any agency by the organic law of its existence
*definition of ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS

PUYAT v DE GUZMAN FACTS: Assemblyman served initially as counsel but when not allowed, bought shares in the company and participated as shareholder in the proceedings before the SEC HELD: Indirect appearance as counsel by an assemblyman before an administrative body circumvents the constitutional prohibition. II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION A. Administrative agencies and the executive power of the President [ARTVII.1, CONSTI] Executive power vested in the President

.1.

Administrative Law Reviewer

[ARTVII.17, CONSTI] President has control over EXEC departments, bureaus and offices. B. Congressional Oversight Power *MACALINTAL v COMELEC FACTS: Congress created through RA 9198 a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to review, revise, amend and approve the IRR of COMELEC for the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. It was assailed to be unconstitutional as it encroaches the independence granted by the Constitution to COMELEC. HELD: Some of the provisions of RA 9198 were stricken out for being unconstitutional as it confers powers to the legislative which are not provided for under the Constitution **********PUNOs opinion********** Separation of Powers -prevents the concentration of legislative, executive and judiciary powers to a single branch of government by deftly allocating their exercises to 3 branches of government -Although not hermetically sealed from one another, the powers of the 3 branches are identifiable: legislative power = enactment of the law; executive power = execution of the law; judicial power = interpretation of the law. -one branch cannot exercise or share the power of the other -under separation of powers: checks and balances: under checks and balances, the congressional oversight Congressional Oversight -all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted -intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government Categories: 1. scrutiny [Article VI, Sections 18 and 22] determine the economy and efficiency of the operation of government activities based primarily on the power of appropriation of Congress wherein the Congress conduct hearings for administrative officers to justify their budget proposals; and subsequently under [ArtVI.22], to invite department heads on any matter pertaining to their departments; could also be based on the power of confirmation of the Congress under [ArtVI.18], wherein Congress shares appointing power of the executive to lessen political considerations and an opportunity for Congress to find out whether the nominee possesses the necessary qualifications required. 2. investigation [Article VI, Section 21] limitations: (a) in aid of legislation; (b) in accordance with duly published rules of procedure; (c) rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function, which also includes the power to hold a person in contempt [Arnault v Nazareno]. but the matters which should be addressed in the investigations MUST BE IN AID OF LEGISLATION [Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee] 3. supervision -generally, the congress retains a right to approve or disapprove any regulation before it takes effect if the rulemaking power of the administrative agency is made to depend on a statute. -however, this case is an exception since the rule-making power of COMELEC was conferred not by a legislation but by the CONSTITUTION. C. Legislative and Judicial Control of Administrative Decision-making. Dean Carlota -administrative agencies affect private rights and public interest. It was first objected to due to the doctrine of separation of powers BUT with the Pangasinan case, J. Laurel

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
enunciated the factors that made administrative agencies necessary Legislative Control: 1. Creation and abolition 2. Appropriation 3. Investigation Non-delegation Doctrine and Legislative Standards GR: under the non-delegation doctrine, legislative powers conferred by the Constitution to the Legislature cannot be conferred to other branches of government. EXCEPTION: 1. the law is complete in itself, has a policy 2. the law comes with standards however, even if the delegation is broad, judiciary is often hesitant to strike it down. Therefore, the focus of their judicial review is WON the administrative standards emanate from the law which created the agency itself Judicial Review -judicial review allowed on questions of law; if it involves questions of fact and policy, JR only allowed when there is (1) lack of jurisdiction; (2) GAD; (3) error of law; (4) fraud or collusion -on ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: JR not resorted because of their expertise EXCEPTIONS: re: questions of fact: JR resorted to when no substantial evidence Re: questions of policy: when question of policy are intimately connected with questions of law D. The Ombudsman: Its effectivity and visibility amidst bureacratic abuse and irregularity. Dean Carlota Ombudsmans essential characteristics 1. Political independence 2. Accessibility and expedition: has deputies all over the country and may establish offices outside Metro manila whenever necessary. 3. Investigatory powers: can investigate UPON COMPLAINT or on OWN INITIATIVE

4.

absence of revisory jurisdiction: cannot modify or overturn decisions of administrative agencies in the performance of its rulemaking and adjudicative functions

*CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF MWSS v VASQUEZ FACTS: There was a public bidding which was contested by the losing bidder to the Office of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman set aside the MWSS decision to award the project to the winning bidder HELD: Ombudsman may not veto or revise an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested especially when the matter involves basically technical matters coming under the special technical knowledge and training of the agency or officer. -in this case the losing bidder was suggesting the use of fiberglass pipes instead of steel pipes. The Ombudsman had no authority to interfere with the judgment of MWSS of what kind of pipes to use!
*Ombudsman has no revisory power

*LASTIMOSA V VASQUEZ FACTS: Provincial prosecutor filed only acts of lasciviousness instead of attempted rape which was ordered by the Office of the Ombudsman, and thus was placed under preventive suspension HELD: The ombudsman has the power to review, revise, direct, reverse or modify a decision of a prosecutor deputized or designated to be under the his control and supervision, and thus, can also punish and discipline them. -The Ombudsman has the power to INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE on its own or on complaint by any person (1) Any act or omission by any PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, OFFICE or AGENCY

.2.

Administrative Law Reviewer

(2) When such act or omission appears to be ILLEGAL, UNJUST, IMPROPER or INEFFICIENT (IUII) -includes ANY CRIME COMMITTED by a public official regardless of WON acts are related to, connected with, or arise from the performance of his official duty

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
word recommend should be interpreted with the phrase and ensure compliance therewith.
*Ombudsman can direct and compel the head of the agency or office to implement the penalty imposed. Not merely advisory but Mandatory

*Although the ruling of this case involves the power of Ombudsman over its deputies, the case also highlighted that it has jurisdiction over ALL KINDS OF CASES INVOLVING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL regardless if its connected with his official duty

*BIR v OFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACTS: Upon information of an informant that BIR was granting anomalous grant of tax refunds, the Ombudsman directed BIRs legal department to appear before him and to bring the case dokets of the two companies involved. BIR protested, arguing that there was already a previous case which upheld the validity of the tax refunds and that THERE MUS BE A PENDING ACTION BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA HELD: the pendency of an action is not a prerequisite for the Ombudsman to start its own investigation. It can do so even on a verbal, unsigned or unverified complaint
*Ombudsman can motu propio investigate

*ESTARIJA v RANADA FACTS:Estarija was found guilty by the Ombudsman of dishonesty and grave misconduct for demanding monies for the approval and issuance of berthing permits and monthly contributions, and was dismissed from service. He questioned the constitutionality of RA 6770 as granting powers to the Ombudsman which were not provided for by the COnsti HELD: Upheld the validity of RA 6770 based on the ff: 1. Jurisprudence: [LEDESMA V CA] 2. intent fo framers of the consti: powers of Ombudsman not exclusive 3. consti: The consti allows legislature to enact a law that would spell out the powers of the Ombudsman. III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES A. Legislative function 1. nondelegation doctrine: potestas delegate non delegare potest COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACCO V BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION FACTS: Act No. 2307 conferred the Board with authority to require every public utility reports containing such matters as the Board may from time to time by order prescribe. In pursuance to the said law, the Board required Compania to present a detailed report of its finances and operations of its vessels. Compania contested the validity of Act 2307 for being an unlawful attempt to delegate legislative power to the Board. HELD: Act was unconstitutional. Unlawful delegation of legislative power. -The law should provide the general rules of action under which the Board was to proceed. -legislative power, which involves discretion and judgment, should be exercised by the body entrusted with the duty and cannot delegate it. -the law must be complete, in all its terms and provisions, when it leaves the legislature, so that, in form and substance it is a law in all its details, in presenti, but which may be left to take effect in futuro.
*For nondelegation: the law should provide general rules of action, must be complete

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V ENOC FACTS: Ombudsman filed information against employees of the OSCC who were accused with malversation through falsification. These employees had a salary grade below SG27. Respondents moved to quash information on the ground that regular courts had jurisdiction over the case (therefore provincial prosecutor should file case, not ombudsman) HELD: Ombudsman has plenary and unqualified powers to prosecute NOT ONLY GRAFT CASES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN but also those COGNIZABLE BY THE REGULAR COURTS as long as (1) these acts were done by public officer or employee and (2) these acts appear to be IUII.
*Ombudsman can prosecute cases even if not under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

*FUENTES V OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACTS: There was an expropriation case wherein the scrap iron in the said expropriated area was sold in a public auction and to be able to withdraw said scrap iron, the winning bidder applied for a writ of execution before the petitioner judge. The writ of execution was granted but was subsequently cancelled. Administrative charges were filed against the officers involved in the granting and implementing of the writ of execution, including the judge who issued the said writ. Ombudsman was to investigate the acts of said judge. HELD: Ombudsman may not initiate a criminal or administrative complaint before his office against a judge, pursuant to his power to investigate public officers. Ombudsman must indorse the case to the SC for appropriate action. [Art VIII.6, CONSTI] exclusively vests in SC administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel
*Ombudsman cannot investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a court officer or personnel

LEDESMA V CA FACTS: Ledesma, as chair of BSI of BID filed a complaint (criminal and administrative) against 2 of its employees for allegedly granting extension of Temporary Resident Visas. Ombudsman conducted an investigation and subsequently held that the grant of TRVs were regular. Ledesma appealed the recommendation of the Ombudsman to CA, CA denied MFR. HELD: Under [ArtXI.13(3), CONSTI] a recommendation that emanates from the Ombudsman after it has conducted its investigation is NOT MERELY ADVISORY BUT BINDING AND MANDATORY. -On RA 6770 vs CONSTI: RA 6770 grants the ombudsman the power to remove, suspend, demoteerring officials when the CONSTI merely provided that Ombudsman can only recommend the removal of the said official. SC held that the

*US v ANG TANG HO FACTS: Act 2868 authorized the Governor General to fix quantities of agricultural products that a company or merchant may acquire, and the maximum sale price that the company or merchant may demand for any cause. Ang Tang Ho was prosecuted for allegedly imposing excessive price. He questioned constitutionality of said Act for authorizing GG to fix price. HELD: Unconstitutional. 1. Legislature left GG to determine when a crime is committed 2. Legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes or intends to make its own action to depend
*When a legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, it is undue delegation

*PEOPLE V VERA FACTS: Cu Unjieng convicted for a crime, applied for probation. Act providing for probation assailed to be unconstitutional for leaving each provincial board the discretion on WON to apply it. HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

.3.

Administrative Law Reviewer

TEST for determining WON there was UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER: WON the law does not lay down any rule by which the administrative office or board my be guided in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it.
*Test to determine undue delegation

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
that the legislature in making the delegation has prescribed the manner of the exercise of the legislative power. -in delegation of rate-fixing power, only standard legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and just.
*difference between a legislative act and a quasi-legislative act in rate-fixing Legislative: concerns all companies QJ: concerns a specific entity *STANDARD FOR RATE-FIXING POWER

*PELAEZ V AUITOR GENERAL FACTS: VP Pelaez assailed the constitutionality of EOs issued by the President creating 33 municipalities for being an undue delegation of legislative power, and since the Administrative Code which the President used to create the municipalities was repealed by a law which prohibited him from even creating barrios. HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL -Creation of municipalities not an administrative function but one which is legislative in character. -COMPLETENESS TEST: (1) law must be complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate (2) it must fix a standard the limits are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
*Requisites for nondelegation

*CHIONGBIAN V ORBOS FACTS: President Aquino merged provinces to form ARMM, pursuant to RA 6734 and the Constitution, through and EO. EO was assailed as unconstitutional. HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL. -MERGING of provinces into regions is similar to the power to adjust municipal boundaries which is administrative in nature. NOT CREATING MUNICIPALITIES WHICH IS PURELY LEGISLATIVE. -standard may be embodied in other statues on the same matter and not necessarily in the same law being challenged.
*standard may be found in other germane statutes; merging provinces administrative, not legislative

*EDU V ERICTA FACTS: Galo assailed validity of the Reflector Law HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -The standard defines the legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out the boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. -The standard may be express or implied. Standard here is public safety.
*Standards may be IMPLIED

SANTIAGO v COMELEC FACTS: PIRMA launched a peoples initiative to remove the term limits on elective posts. COMELEC issued a resolution adopted to govern the conduct of peoples initiative to fill out gaps of the enabling law RA 6735. This resolution was assailed. HELD: NOT VALID EXERCISE OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION -no standard, not complete

*The ruling here is questioned because the SC did not explain why the standards of the RA 6735 were incomplete, inadequate. The Resolution of COMELEC specifically was intended to make the said insufficiencies of the said law!

AGUSTIN v EDU FACTS: This time the Reflector law was implemented through the Letters of Instruction which required all owners and drivers to obtain a pair of reflectorized triangular early warning device. HELD: Letters of Instruction CONSTITUTIONAL -the legislature must determine matters of principle, lay down fundamental policy, and indicate the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected.
*Also, standards may be IMPLIED (Public safety)

FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION V MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT FACTS: Union assails the constitutionality of the amendment to the Labor Code which allows the Minister of Labor to certify cases as adversely affecting the national interest for compulsory arbitration. HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -To determine WON there is undue delegation of legislative power, inquire on the scope of definiteness of the measure enacted. ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION: All that is required is that: 1. the regulation should be germane to the objects and the purposes of the law 2. the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conform to the standards of the law -case was not yet ripe for adjudication *PHILCOMSAT V ALCUAZ FACTS: Philcomsat has long been the provider of satellite circuits in the Philippines. Then, NTC acquired jurisdiction over Philcomsat and required the latter to reduce the rates it has been imposing. Philcomsat now assails the said orders for not fixing standards. HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and

*PANAMA v RYAN FACTS: An act empowered the President to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of hot oil. Panama assailed said law. HELD: Law unconstitutional. No standard, no policy. The legislature, to prevent its being a pure delegation of legislative power, must enjoin upon the agent a certain course of procedure and certain rules of decision in the performance of its function. -delegation of power to make law is unconstitutional; power to confer authority or discretion as to its execution is allowed. -discretion is not unconfined and vagrant. It is canalized within the banks that keep it from overflowing [J. Cardozo, dissenting, thinks that if viewed as a whole, the said law is provided with a standard] ALA SCHECTER POULTRY CORP V US FACTS: President conferred the power to approve or disapprove codes of Fair Competition applied by a trade or industrial group assailed. HELD: (vs. PANAMA v RYAN) when no statutory standards or procedural safeguards for promulgating the codes are provided, then it is undue delegation of legislative power.
*delegation run riot

FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION v AL GONQUIN SNG, INC. FACTS: Trade Expansion Act authorizes the President to take action upon the finding of the Sec. of Treasury that an article is being imported in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security. President did just that. Companies assail constitutionality of said Act. HELD: Act CONSTITUTIONAL. It provided standards for the president to follow
*Just an example

WHITE v ROUGHTON FACTS: standards for granting welfare assistance determined by the general township assistance program. The people who

.4.

Administrative Law Reviewer

filed case vs. Roughton complains that they were deprived of the benefits without notice or explanation for the decisions. HELD: Notice and hearing first before -establish written standards and regulations *sir said this case was unique because it said that if there are no standards, agency itself should provide standards 2. Permissible Delegation a. Ascertainment of Fact PANAMA v RYAN, supra Congress can leave selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. LOVINA v MORENO FACTS: Statute provided the Secretary of Public Works and Communications the authority to determine WON a stream is public and WON dams encroach upon such waters HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -when an officer is REQUIRED by law to inquire into the existence of certain facts, and to APPLY THE LAW no delegation of judicial power *ABAKADA GURO V ERMITA FACTS: ABAKADA et.al assails the constitutionality of VAT Reform Act. ON NONDELEGATION ISSUE, they assail the sections which provides the Sec. of Finance the power to ascertain WON the VAT collection as a percentage of the GDP exceeded a certain percentage HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which the enforcement and administration of the increased rate would depend is not a delegation of legislative power but simply a delegation of ascertainment of facts. -Sec of Finance is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect.
*delegation of power to ascertain facts allowed

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
(2) Records officer shall carry out the requirements under pain of disciplinary action (3) Permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency SEC4. EFFECTIVITY Each rule shall be effective 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF FILING AS ABOVE PROVIDED UNLESS A DIFFERENT DATE IS FIXED BY LAW. SEC5. PUBLICATION AND RECORDING UP Law Center shall publish bulletin SEC 6. OMISSION OF SOME RULES. Could omit rules which are cumbersome, expensive or inexpedient to publish -if penal rule, should be published in FULL TEXT SEC7. DISTRIBUTION OF BULLETIN AND CODIFIED RULES. SEC 8. JUDICIAL NOTICE. Court shall take judicial notice of certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin SEC9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (1) agency publish or circulate notices of proposed rules + opportunity for interested parties to submit their views (UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW) (2) FIXING RATES: proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before first hearing or else proposed rates INVALID (so publication + hearing) 1. Limits on Rule-Making Power OLSEN INC V ALDANESE FACTS: In implementing an act improving method of production and quality of tobacco, CIR issued AO 35 which limited the exportation into the US of Philippine cigars to those manufactured from long filler tobacco exclusively the product of provinces Cagayan, Isabela or Nueva Viscaya. HELD: CIR exceeded its rule-making power

*The authority of CIR to make any rules and regulation should be founded upon some legislative act (LAW), and that they must follow and be within the scope and purview of the act.

b. filling in of details ALEGRE V COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS FACTS: Allegre who was an exporter of abaca, applied for permit to export abaca, but was denied unless he obtained a certification from the Fiber Standardization Board. HELD: NO delegation. Just carried out purpose and intent of the law, which is administrative *a statute which leaves to the Executive the power to fill in the technical details in view of the latters expertise is a recognized delegation of legislative power. C. Administrative Rule-making ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, BOOK VII CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC1. SCOPE. All agencies Except: -Congress -Judiciary -Constitutional Commissions -military establishments in matters relating exclusively to AF personnel -Board of Pardons and Parole -state universities and colleges Sec2. definitions CHAPTER 2. RULES AND REGULATIONS SEC3. FILING (1) File with the UP Law Center 3 certified copies

SYMAN V JACINTO FACTS: Collector seized the goods consigned to Syman, but subsequently it was held that the said goods be released. Syman did not appeal from the said decision, and was asking for the execution of the said judgment. However, the said decision was endorsed to the Commissioner of Customs in accordance with a Memo issued by the Commissioner providing that the Commissioner can review the decisions of the Collector, regardless if appealed or not. HELD: Memo void (1) not approved by the Department Head (2) not published (3) inconsistent with law, Revised Admin Code specifically provides that an appeal should first be made before Commissioner may review case
*the rule should not be inconsistent with the law (Revised Admin Code)

PEOPLE V MACEREN FACTS: Accused convicted of violation of Fisheries Admin Order prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine Waters. But enabling law which was promulgated did not prohibit electro fishing HELD: The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.
*cannot make penal rule if enabling law does not allow for one.

TOLEDO V CSC FACTS: Toledo was appointed as Manager of Education and Information Department of the COMELEC even though he was 57 years old, in violation of the Civil Service Rules on

.5.

Administrative Law Reviewer

Personnel Action and policies. His appointment was subsequently declared voidable. HELD: The said prohibition by CSC is INVALID since the law which established CSC and authorized it to prescribe and enforce rules for carrying into effect the provisions of the law DOES NOT PROHIBIT APPOINTMENT OR REINSTATEMENT IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE OF ANY PERSON ALREADY 57 YEARS OLD
* cannot make rule which are not germane to the purpose of the law which it meant to implement

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
FACTS: HDMF made an amendment to the Mutual fund law, interpreting the and/or by providing just and in the amendment re: provident/retirement plans. HELD: the basic law should prevail as embodiment of the legislative purpose; rules cannot go beyond the laws terms and provisions
*when theres conflict, follow the enabling law

CIR v CA FACTS: ROH Autoparts applied for tax amnesty. CIR issued a Revenue Memo which construed the amnesty coverage to include only assessments after the issuance of the EO declaring tax amnesty. HELD: All rules must not override, but must remain consistent and in harmony with the law they seek to apply and implement.
*must not be inconsistent with the enabling law

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V CA FACTS: In accordance with CARL, land of respondent was expropriated. However, instead of paying in cash or Land Bank bonds, DAR issued Certificates of Deposit. HELD: The function of promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose to carrying the provisions of law into effect. The power of administrative agencies is thus confined to implementing law or putting it into effect. Corollary to this is that administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment
*must be consistent with the enabling law

MAXIMA REALTY MANAGEMENT V PARKWAY FACTS: Concerns a sale of a condo unit which was cancelled because of defaults in payments of installments. The buyer filed with OAALA of HLURB a complaint for specific performance to enforce sale but HLURB affirmed nullification of Deed of sale. Appealed to Board of Commissioners of HLURB and initially offered to pay the balance which was accepted by the seller but buyer still was not able to pay so Board affirmed nullification. Buyer appealed to Office of the President but filed appeal out of time. HELD: appeal filed out of time -Special Law (HLURB ROP and AO 18 provides 30d) vs PD (provides 15d): PD rules! -an administrative rule in order to be valid must not contradict but conform to the provisions of the enabling law. *Where there is conflict, follow the enabling law 2. Publication and effectivity PEOPLE V QUE PO LAY FACTS: Que po lay said to have violated CB Circular No. 20 which requires the sale of foreign exchange to CB within 1 day following the receipt of such foreign exchange, and was convicted. On appeal, argued that said circular was not published so not effective HELD: rule which prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective on the general principle and theory that before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation, or circular must first be published and the people officially and especially informed of said contents and its penalties. *publication required for penal rules PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS V SSS FACTS: Original R & R provided rebate upon departure from RP of Alien employees but amendments which were published NOV 1958 (After employees were separated from employment) eliminated the rebate except if worked for 2years HELD: VALID EVEN WITHOUT PUBLICATION -the R & R itself provides effectivity date on its day of approval by the President
*interpreted A2, NCC to apply ONLY when the law does not provide an effectivity date

GMRC v BELL TELECOM PHIL FACTS: Belltel filed application with NTC. 2 deputy commissioners already approved of the application but Commissioner Kintanar didnt. Memo Circular in NTC lodged in the Chairman the exclusive authority to sign, validate, promulgate any and all orders, resolutions and decisions of NTC, while the enabling law EO146 organized NTC as a collegial body. HELD: said Memo Circular is void. -Administrative regulations derive their validity from the statute that they were intended to implement. ASSOCIATION OF PHIL. COCONUT DESICCATORS V PHIL. COCONUT AUTHORITY FACTS: PCA issued Resolution which withdrew from PCA all regulation of coconut product processing industry; registration would be limited to the monitoring of their volumes of production and admin of quality standards. HELD: said renunciation of power through a resolution VOID -Rule cannot abdicate the powers set up by the enabling law OPLE V TORRES FACTS: AO adopting a National ID System sought to be invalidated. HELD: The President may not unilaterally impose a new legislative policy requiring the adjustment of various other contending policies
*power to promulgate rules should be made pursuant to the consti

PBC v CIR FACTS: BIR amended the NIRC by providing a longer prescriptive period for filing Tax Refunds HELD: CIR Cannot provide for a longer prescriptive period, going beyond the NIRC
*should be consistent with the enabling law

*TANADA V TUVERA FACTS: mandamus to compel officials concerned to publish/cause publication of Marcos orders in the OG HELD: Publication in the OG is a condition sine quo non for the effectivity of laws, where the law itself does not provide for its effectivity date. -publication necessary in cases to ascertain the date of effectivity. -EXCEPTIONS TO PUBLICATION: 1.interpretative regulations 2. those merely internal in nature (regulating only personnel of the administrative agency 3. Letters of instructions concerning rules or guidelines to be followed by subordinates in the performance of their duties PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS V TORRES FACTS: DO and MC suspended the recruitment and deployment of OFWs to HK but the said orders were not published and filed with NAR

CHINA BANK V MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND

.6.

Administrative Law Reviewer

HELD: Law invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of proper publication and filing in the office of the NAR as required by A2, NCC; A5, LC and Admin Code of 1987 DE JESUS V COA FACTS: Circular implementing RA 6758 discontinued without qualification all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary (but was not published in OG HELD: Should be published! *RP v EXPRESS TELCO FACTS: Bayantel applied for CPCN to operated CMTS but ist motion was archived. Upon availability of frequencies, Bayantel filed motion to revive its case which NTC granted under 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure, with its 1993 Rules not yet published even if filed with UP LAW CENTER HELD: Adminsitrative rules and regulations are subject to the publication and effectivity rules of the RAC in relation to the Civil Code: Effectivity is 15 days after publication, not 15 days from date of filing with the UP Law Center.
*effect of national administrative code on effectivity of rules

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
*VICTORIAS CO V SSC FACTS: Victorias assailed Circular 22 which informed ERs that all bonuses and OT pay as well as cash value of other media of remuneration would comprise the EEs remuneration or earnings upon which the SSS contributions would be based. They argue that this rule should have the approval of the Prexi and should be published before it becomes effective. SSC argues that its a mere administrative interpretation of RA 1161 which empowers the SSC to adopt R & R as may be necessary. HELD: Circular mere administrative interpretation which does not need publication -Old law exempts from coverage of the base pay the bonuses; AMENDMENT included the bonuses in the base pay. Circ22 merely interpreted the amendment!
*administrative interpretation at best merely advisory; it is the courts that finally determine what the law means

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS (NASECORE) V ERC FACTS: MERALCO filed an application to increase general charge BUT its amended application was not published, as required by IRR of EPIRA so consumer group questioned validity of granting the said application on procedural process. MERALCO argues that it used GRAM IR which exempted the application from publication HELD: should publish the suggested increase -GRAM IR was not even published
*regardless, the present Admin Code now requires under Sec9, Book VII that publication is needed 2 weeks before the scheduled hearing

3. Penal Regulations PEOPLE V QUE PO LAY, supra HELD: Rule which prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective, before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation, or circular must first be published and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents and penalties. PEOPLE V MACEREN, supra HELD: administrative rules and regulations cannot amend or modify or expand the enabling law by including, prohibiting or punishing certain acts which the law does not even define as a criminal act. 4. Interpretative Rules Subordinate legislation: designed to implement a law by providing it details -before its adoption there must be hearing under the Administrative Code [SEC9] Interpretative rules: how the agency interpret uncertainties in the law HILLADO V COLLECTOR FACTS: Hilado filed income tax return for 1951 claiming P12873 deduction pursuant to GC v-123 which grants deductions based on war damage (However, he received notice in 1950 so if ever, deductions would be made in 1950). Later, Sec of Finance issued GC V 139 which declared GC V123 void HELD: Hilado cannot claim income tax return 1. he received last notice on 1951 so deduct from 1950 2. not a business asset dependent upon generosity 3. merely interpretative rule cannot change the law enacted by congress

PERALTA V CSC FACTS: C5.49 of the Handbook of Information on the Philippine Civil Service provided deductions from salaries when absence incurred before or after weekends or holidays. RA 2625 intended to exclude from computation of leave Sat, Sun, and holidays because the employee is entitled not to go to office during those days HELD: when an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a preexisting law; -administrative interpretation of a law is at best advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. -Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if: (1) there is an error of law (2) abuse of power (3) lack of jurisdiction (4) GAD clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of the legislative enactment
*when interpretation of admin agencies may be disturbed?

5. Examples of rule-making in various agencies DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY V MUNOZ FACTS: Piadeco claims to own some 72k ha. Of land through a Titulo de Propiedad and acquired a Certificate of Private Woodland Registration. Subsequently, due to violations, his certificate was cancelled. AO No. 12-2 also made his registration of said land prohibited. HELD: AO 12-2 has the force and effect of law, promulgated pursuant to the law. *when Congress authorized the promulgation of administrative rules and regulations to implement a given legislation, all that is required is that : (1) the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law (2) the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conform to the standards that the law practices SAND V ABAD SANTOS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FACTS: Respondents questioned visitorial powers and power to deny admission of the Board of Examiners for nurses. TC ruled for them. HELD: The Board of Examiners had the power to promulgate rules in accordance with the Philippine Nursing Act, valid as to old and new schools, and is a valid exercise of Police power *AMERICAN TOBACCO V DIRECTOR OF PATENTS FACTS: Director of patents amended the Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine Patent Office, authorizing himself to designate any ranking official to HEAR inter partes proceedings, BUT STILL RETAINING power to determine the merits of the case and the personal and direct preparation of the case. HELD: Amendment valid

*Interpretative rules may be found erroneous by the successor of the promulgating official. A vested right cannot spring from wrong interpretation of law.

.7.

Administrative Law Reviewer

SUBDELEGATION OF POWER: While the power to decide resides solely in the administrative agency vested by law, this does not preclude a delegation of the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which the decision of administrative agency will be made. It is sufficient that the judgment and discretion finally exercised are those of the officer authorized by law. Subdelegation is allowed by sound principles of organization, unless expressly prohibited by law. ***since the other cases are just examplessaka na lang d. Fixing of Rates, Wages, Prices Administrative Code, Book VII [SEC9. Public Participation] (2) In fixing rates, not valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 wks before 1st hearing PANAY AUTOBUS V PHIL RAILWAY FACTS: Philippine Railways allowed to increase or decrease the rates they were collecting whenever in their judgment they find it necessary CF: KMU V GARCIA FACTS: LTFRB allowed application for fare rate increase even without filing a petition for the said purpose HELD: Abdication of power of commission to fix rates by redelegating their rate-fixing power to those theyre supposed to regulate is VOID *companies should propose rates and the commission would either approve or disapprove the proposed rates *YNCHAUSTI V PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION FACTS: increase in shipping rates, strike of seamen led to increase in wages, led to further increase in rates HELD: increase in rates improper; should be based on: 1. original cost 2. cost of reproduction 3. outstanding capitalization 4. present market value compared with just compensation in appropriation cases: take into account fair market value @ time of taking IN CASE OF VESSELS: public transportation -taking done only once, but gradually, so rates should not be based on ACQUISITION COST, but on present market value
*rates should be based on present valuation of all the property of the public utility

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
MIAA V AIRSPAIN FACTS: MIAA leases areas in airport, increased rentals and airport fees HELD: rate-fixing exercised by MIAA NULL and VOID -DOTC had the power to increase the said rates, NOT MIAA!
*agency cannot exercise rate-fixing powers if not authorized to do so!

e. Licensing Functions Administrative Code, Book VII [SEC17. LICENSING PROCEDURE] Grand, renewal, denial, cancellation of license Required to be preceded with NOTICE AND HEARING Unless: -willful violation of pertinent law, rules and regulations -When public security, health or safety requires [SEC18. NONEXPIRATION OF LICENSE] In case of timely and sufficient application for renewal: not expired until agency finally determined the application (deemed valid until renewal denied) GONZALO SY TRADING V CBP FACTS: Gonzalo was granted a permit to export fruits for the Xmas season of 68 but still used the permit from 69-70. The fruits he subsequently imported were forfeited and sold in a public auction. HELD: no expiry date does not mean that the license is perpetual. A license permit is a special privilege, a permission or authority to do what is within its terms. It is not vested, permanent, or absolute, but is ALWAYS REVOCABLE. *no such thing as a permanent license! B. JUDICIAL FUNCTION 3 essential elements of judicial function 1. competent tribunal which has jurisdiction as provided by law 2. case or controversy 3. law or rule to be applied to resolve a case So whats the difference between what Administrative bodies are doing vs Judicial bodies -admin bodies are NOT REGULAR COURTS OF JUSTICE (Not part of the judiciary) -Admin bodies NOT BOUND BY TECHNICAL RULES AND PROCEDURES they were created with dispatch, flexibility, speed so they can resolve cases in the soonest available time for the good of the public Administrative Code, Book VII [SEC10. COMPROMISE AND ARBITRATION] Every agency encourage amicable settlement, compromise and arbitration [SEC11. NOTICE AND HEARING IN CONTESTED CASES] 1. all parties entitled to notice and hearing Notice: served at least 5 days before date of hearing state DATE, TIME and PLACE of HEARING 2. opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation 3. records of proceedings kept by agency [SEC12. RULES OF EVIDENCE] 1. admit, give probative value to evidence Commonly accepted by reasonably prudent man In conduct of their affairs 2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: may present copies or excerpts, subject to review of parties 3. right to cross-examine, submit rebuttal evidence 4. JUDICIAL NOTICE:

*VIGAN ELECTRIC V PSC FACTS: PSC ordered Vigan Electric to reduce the rates it was collecting for its electric service (without hearing) HELD: Order VOID for being violative of DUE PROCESS (as was discussed in PHILCOMSAT) *LEGISLATIVE v QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION LEGISLATIVE: rule-making power, power to fix rates meant to apply to ALL ENTERPRISES of a given kind THROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINES QUASI-JUDICIAL: applies EXCLUSIVELY to a single enterprise, affecting its rights and property -requires HEARING and NOTICE to the propriety and reasonableness of the rates fixed *PHILCOMSAT V ALCUAZ, supra FACTS: Philcomsat was required to lower its rates
*HELD: Notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action in the exercise of EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, or LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS; BUT where a public administrative body acts in a JUDICIAL or QUASI-JUDICIAL matter, and its acts are PARTICULAR and IMMEDIATE rather than general and prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice and hearing.

.8.

Administrative Law Reviewer

-judicially cognizable facts -generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within the agencys specialized knowledge [SEC13. SUBPOENA] -power to require attendance of witnesses -power to require production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data UPON REQUEST+ show GENERAL RELEVANCE -INVOKE AID OF RTC to punish disobedience, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW [SEC14. DECISION] -in writing -shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based -decide case within 30 days following its submission -parties notified personally or by registered mail [SEC15.FINALITY OF ORDER] -final and executory 15d after the receipt of a copy thereof of adverse party -UNLESS: admin appeal or JR -1 MFR, suspends running of period for appeal *ON PROVISIONS OF ADMIN CODE: minimum standards, allows elbow room for the agencies a. Power to issue subpoena, declare contempt [SEC13] -SHOULD BE EXPRESSLY GRANDTED BY LAW, or else invoke -all have power to issue subpoenas to perform its adjudicative functions -contempt powers should be expressly provided by law *IF THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES OR CONFERS AUTHORITY TO THE AGENCY TO CITE A PERSON FOR CONTEMPT THEN IT MAY DO SO. HOWEVER, IF NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 13, BOOK VII OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987 MUST INVOKE THE AID OF THE RTC. WHY EXPRESS POWER TO CITE PERSON IN CONTEMPT NEEDED? Power to declare a person in contempt is STRICTLY A JUDICIAL POWER so it must be conferred by law [PD 902-A] SEC granted the following powers -punish for contempt in accordance with the ROC -issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witness to appear *EVANGELISTA V JARENCIO FACTS: President created PARGO, and vested it powers of an investigating committee under the RAC. Manalastas issued a subpoena ad testificandum. Manalastas questioned said subpoena. HELD: PARGO may issue subpoena -PARGO was EXPRESSLY authorized by the EO which created it the power to issue subpoena -Administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations WON adjudication is involved WON probable cause is shown even before the issuance of the complaint TEST for valid enforcement of subpoena: 1. within the authority of the agency 2. demand not too indefinite 3. information reasonably relevant (general relevance) IN INVOKING RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN ADMIN PROCEEDINGS -In administrative proceedings which are Punitive or quasicriminal in character, respondent in that case can invoke the rights against self-incrimination. BUT when the person

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
invoking the right is a mere witness, the right is applied in a question to question basis, not a blanket refusal. *GUEVARRA V COMELEC FACTS: alleged irregularities in COMELEC, Guevarra cited for contempt for publishing an article regarding said irregularity HELD: Although COMELEC had the power to cite persons in contempt, this power CANNOT BE USED IN THE DISCHARGE OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS only in relation to their quasijudicial functions CATURA V CIR FACTS: CIR ordered Catura to provide CIR with the book of accounts of the union. HELD: CIR could validly order the presentation of the said accounts It is not for the SC to whittle down the authority conferred on administrative agencies to assure the effective administration of a statute. If the matter is properly within its cognizance, the means necessary to give it force and effectiveness should be deemed implied, unless the power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private rights. TOLENTINO V INCIONG FACTS: Inciong (SOLE) cited for contempt the Judge who heard case in CFI and the President of the labor union. HELD: SOLE cannot hold a CFI JUDGE IN CONTEMPT! -a public official exercises power, not rights. The government being an agent of the people, its officers are likewise agents entrusted with responsibility of discharging its functions. As such there is no presumption that the officers are empowered to act. There must be a delegation of such authority, express or implied, and in the absence of a valid grant they are devoid of power. *power to hold a person in contempt is not presumed, but must be expressly or impliedly granted b. Warrants of arrest, Administrative searches [ARTIII.2, CONSTI] No search warrant/ warrant of arrest shall issue EXCEPT upon probable cause To be determined PERSONALLY by the JUDGE After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce And particularly describing place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized Vs. 1973 consti: provided that other responsible officer as may be authorized by law MAY issue warrants! *QUA CHEE GAN V DEPORTATION BOARD FACTS: Qua Chee Gan was arrested by the DB (acting as agents of the president) after charges was brought against him by the DB. HELD: ILLEGAL ARREST -the presidents power of investigation may be delegated and DB is his authorized agent -HOWEVER, power granted to DB does not extend to power to arrest since it involved the exercise of discretion by the one exercising the same, to determine whether under specific circumstances, the curtailment of liberty is warranted -Filing of a bond to ensure presence in deportation proceedings enough
*Immigration authorities can only issue warrants of arrest against undesirable aliens ONLY if such issuance is pursuant to a FINAL ORDER of deportation. They cannot issue warrants for purposes of investigation, only judges can do so.

VIVO V MONTESA FACTS: Calacaday brothers admitted to the Philippines because they were allegedly sons of legitimate Filipino citizens but their alleged father (in a fit of anger) disowned them (later retracted). DB ordered for their arrest, for them to show cause why they should not be deported. One of the

.9.

Administrative Law Reviewer

brothers who was not arrested prayed that deportation proceedings be restrained HELD: CFI cannot restrain deportation proceedings -issuance of warrants of arrest by commissioner SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTIGATION AND BEFORE FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION unconstitutional only judge could issue warrants.
*consistent with Qua Chee Gan doctrine

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
*SALAZAR V ACHACOSO FACTS: POEA issued warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) upon complaint of illegal recruitment filed before it. HELD: ONLY Judges could issue warrant of arrest in accordance with the Consti -the provision of the LC which authorized the SOLE to issue warrants now declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, had no force and effect -EXCEPTION: President of RP/Commissioner of CID can issue warrants ONLY IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT A FINAL DECISION OF DEPORTATION in recognition of supremacy of the Executive in matters of foreign affairs *Consistent with Qua Chee Gan in upholding power to issue warrants vested only in judge and that Commissioner may only issue warrants AFTER DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS ALREADY TERMINATED ***SO AFTER HARVEY and LUCIEN cases, QUA CHEE GAN DOCTRINE was subsequently reconsidered by SC *CAMARA V MUNICIPAL COURT FACTS: There was supposedly an inspection of a residential house among the apartment building compound but the owner refused entrance of the inspectors without a WARRANT HELD: WARRANT NEEDED for search and seizure BEFORE conducting a search -right against unreasonable searches and seizure safeguarded -right to privacy > right to public safety -could still conduct inspection, BUT HAS TO ACQUIRE A WARRANT to do so DISSENT: it was common practice to conduct routinary inspection without warrant since it is NOT A CRIMINAL INSPECTION. If warrant needed every time a routine inspection is conducted, then court would only serve as a rubber stamp! *SEE V SEATTLE FACTS: locked commercial warehouse to be inspected for fire protection but owner refused entry HELD: UPHOLD right to privacy -secure warrant first -LIMITS on ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS OF CORPORATE BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS 1. limited in scope 2. relevant in purpose 3. specific directives so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome 4. subpoena must designate the deeded documents 5. subpoena may not be made and enforced in the field 6. subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of reasonableness of demand prior to suffering penalties for refusal to comply *sir said that this case would have been different if the warehouse was not locked. c. Imposition of Fines and Penalties *OCEANIC STEAM V STRANAHAN FACTS: Shipping company seeks to recover the money it paid to the Secretary of Commerce as a fine for clearance in relation to the authority conferred by law to the Secretary to refuse entry of ships with aliens afflicted with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease. HELD: Secretary had power to impose such exaction -TEST FOR VALIDITY (3 should all concur) 1. subject matter must be within the control of the Congress to legislate 2. Penalty is administrative or civil, not criminal (i.e. no corresponding service in jail if unable to pay) 3. power to impose fines must be expressly authorized by law
*Test for validity = framework to be used

SANTOS V COMMISSIONER FACTS: Allegedly Chinese citizen detained pending deportation proceedings. Chinese file petition for habeas corpus and was ordered released HELD: Warrant of arrest VOID -applied 1935 Consti which only authorized JUDGE to determine probable cause for issuing warrant of arrest
*Consistent with Qua Chee Gan doctrine

***IN THE 3 PRECEDING CASES, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CONSTI MADE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AND CRIMINAL WARRANTS OF ARREST*** *HARVEY V DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO FACTS: suspected pedophiles were to be deported and pending deportation proceedings, were ordered to be arrested by Commissioner HELD: Warrants VALID! -VS. QUA CHEE GAN, this case held that requirement that probable cause be determined personally by the judge DOES NOT EXTEND TO DEPORTATION PROCEEDING, the determination of the existence of a ground for deportation could be determined by the commissioner -ADMIN vs CRIM DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE: the proceedings are NOT PENAL, merely PREVENTIVE -requisites for issuance of warrants: 1. specific charge against the alien 2. a fair hearing conducted 3. charge be substantiated by competent evidence
*ruled that warrants may be issued by commissioner PENDING deportation proceedings vs. Qua Chee Gan Doctrine

LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA V LIWAG FACTS: LTVN, a French national, entered RP as a temporary visitor but became an immigrant. However, he was reported by his lessor to be an undesirable alien, and a MISSION ORDER was issued by CID Commissioner to arrest LTVN. LTVN refused arrest but was subsequently arrested. No proof that warrant of arrest was served prior to arrest. Petition for habeas corpus filed. HELD: ARREST ILLEGAL, Petition MOOT and ACADEMIC because released upon posting of bail -still upheld power of commissioner to issue warrants, but this time warrant was illegally issued because NO PROBABLE CAUSE sufficient to justify the warrant. *consistent with Harvey doctrine *BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V DELAROSA FACTS: William Gatchalian (plastic king of Valenzuela) came from China, arriving from China as RP Citizens, with his grandpa recognized as a native born RP citizen. Subsequently, SOJ issued memo which ordered review of all cases wherein entry was made on the ground that the entrants were RP Citizens. Upon review, Gatchalian was included among those who were ordered excluded and a warrant of exclusion was issued. However, subsequently it was revoked. After almost 20 years, SOJ ordered mission orders upon recommendation of NBI that Gatchalian et.al. had violated Immigration Act. HELD: Mission orders VOID *Consistent with Qua Chee Gan: Warrant of arrest can be issued by Commissioner only after deportation proceedings and for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation.

. 10 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

*CAB v PAL FACTS: CAB imposed fines against PAL for operating the flagstop without permission. HELD: CAB Could validly impose fines -a fine in the nature of a civil penalty (i.e. not in the nature of criminal penalty) that is exacted not so much as a penalty for a violation of administrative rules but for the need to stress desistance from wanton disregard of existing rules, regulations, or requirements, is an administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecution. If every time the agency had to resort to courts of justice in protracted litigations, it could not serve its purpose as an administrative body.
*nature of Administrative penalties

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
2. Public Interest PEOPLE v. ROSENTHAL FACTS: Blue Sky Law assailed HELD: Blue Sky Law constitutional, no delegation of legislative power -Insular Treasurer can only cancel certificates or permits upon finding that such a cancellation is in the public interest. 3. Justice, equity and substantial merits of the case INTL HARDWOOD V PANGIL FED FACTS: SOLE certified a labor dispute to CIR. ER assailed the jurisdiction of the CIR to determine minimum wages dispute HELD: no undue delegation, CIR can validly determine minimum wages under assailed law -CIR could validly take cognizance of the case, acting according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case. These standards are sufficient to guide CIR in exercising discretion in the determination of any question or controversy before it. 4. What is moral, educational or amusing. MUTUAL FILMS V INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION FACTS: Board of censors wanted the films (2500 in all!) to be reviewed first before it would be exhibited. Mutual films complained that the Board of censors would not be able to do so before the showing date, and that the enabling law is unconstitutional for it does not provide the Board of sufficient standards of what is educational, moral, amusing or harmless HELD: Statute CONSTITUTIONAL, there are sufficient standards in the law itself. The statute guards against such variant judgments and its terms get precision from the sense of men and become certain and useful guidelines in reasoning and conduct. *sufficient standards na daw ung educational, moral, amusing or harmless, and its meaning can be derived from the sense of men[cf: next case] 5. what is sacrilegious BURSTYN V WILSON FACTS: Film declared as sacrilegious and was banned from exhibition HELD: The standard used by the enabling law (SACRILEGIOUS) is not sufficient in itself. UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER -the term sacrilegious based on the sense and standards of the community is too vague a standard 6. adequate and efficient instruction PACU V SECRETARY FACTS: petitioners argue that DEPed Sec given unlimited power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards of adequate and efficient instruction to be observed by private schools and colleges for permit to operate, therefore unconstitutional HELD: Constitutional, no undue delegation of legislative power -the power to provide rules based on adequate and efficient instruction is a sufficient standard 7. reasonableness as an implied standard WISCONSIN INSPECTION BUREAU V WHITMAN FACTS: Wisconsin Rating Act required insurance companies to submit its rulebooks. Insurance companies assailed the law for giving the commissioner unlimited power no standards that would govern his action HELD: There is an implied standard: REASONABLENESS -administrative bodies and officers must act not only within their statutory powers but in a REASONABLE AND ORDERLY MANNER. The rule of reasonableness inheres in every law, and the acts of those charged with its enforcement must be subject to the test of reasonableness.
*every law is implied to have a standard of reasonableness

SCOTYS DEPT. STORE V MICALLER FACTS: CIR imposed a fine on the dept store for ULP HELD: CIR not authorized by enabling law to impose fines

*if imposition of fines is not clearly stated in the enabling law, then it is a judicial function

*US V BARRIAS FACTS: Barrias, captain of the barge who used bamboo poles instead of steam power to move the boat along the Pasig River, was fined. HELD: Penalty imposed invalid because the enabling law does not provide for it. It was the local authorities who would decide what penalty was to be given
*fixing penalties for a criminal offense is a legislative power that cannot be delegated

RCPI V BOARD OF COMMUNICATIONS FACTS: 2 complaints vs RCPI before the BOC for damages suffered by the said customers for the failure of company to transmit impt. Telegrams HELD: BOC cannot impose fines because said complaint asks for damages, which is cognizable under regular courts of justice
*DAMAGES for BOC not Administrative fines

PEREZ V LPG REFILLERS ASSOC FACTS: Refillers assail circular issued by DOE which implements the law which provides for penalties for acts relating to trade of petroleum products HELD: Circular valid -for an administrative regulation to have the force and effect of penal law, the following must concur: 1. the violation of the administrative regulation must be made a crime by the enabling statute itself 2. the penalty must be provided for by the enabling statute itself
*requisites for a rule to provide for valid penalties

C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards -for purposes of determining WON there was delegation of legislative power (i.e. there was sufficient standard and the law provides for a policy which would guide the delegate on how to implement the law) 1. Interest of Law and Order RUBI V PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO FACTS: mangyans relocated by PB of Mindoro, and refusal to do so would result to imprisonment HELD: Relocation valid -no delegation of legislative power, only conferred authority or discretion as to the execution pursuance to law The PB best fitted to select the most favorable site for improving the lives of the Mangyans -government must guarantee the peace and order to encourage immigrants to invest in Mindoro and to protect crops and persons of settlers of Mindoro from predatory men (i.e. the uncultured Mangyans)

8. to promote simplicity, economy or efficiency

. 11 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

CERVANTES V AUDITOR GENERAL FACTS: the resolution of NAFCOs Board of Directors which proposed quarters allowance in favor of Cervantes was denied in accordance with RA 51 which allowed President to make such reforms and changes for the purpose of promoting simplicity, economy or efficiency HELD: EO of President disallowing the resolution in Cervantes favor is VALID. There was sufficient standard 9. maintain monetary stability, promote rising level of production and real income PEOPLE V JOLIFFE FACTS: MB authorized to punish violators of its circulars, Joliffe being one of them for hoarding gold bullins without license HELD: Such authority as conferred by enabling law is CONSTITUTIONAL, no undue delegation of legislative power IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE A. admin code (BOOK VII, SEC1-26) B. In Rule-making, price, wage, or rate-fixing [SEC9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION]

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
-parties notified personally or by registered mail [SEC15.FINALITY OF ORDER] -final and executory 15d after the receipt of a copy thereof of adverse party -UNLESS: admin appeal or JR -1 MFR, suspends running of period for appeal 2. Due process a. Cardinal Primary Rights *ANG TIBAY V CIR FACTS: Employees temporarily laid off due to shortage of leather. CIR subsequently ruled in favor of ER so EEs appealed to SC, saying that CIR should be bound by technical rules of procedure. HELD: CIR not bound by technical rules of procedure, but must still observe due process *Cardinal Primary Rights 1. Right to hearing: present case, adduce evidence 2. tribunal must consider the evidence presented 3. decision must be supported by evidence 4. evidence must be substantial substantial evidence: such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion 5. decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected 6. Independent consideration of the judge: not simply accept the view of subordinate in arriving at a decision 7. decision must be rendered in such a manner as to let the parties know the issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered ASPREC V ITCHON FACTS: Surveyor who executed wrong survey plan contests cancellation of his license, allegedly in violation of due process HELD: They were the ones who did not attend the hearing -The presence of a party is not always the essence of due process. What the law requires is that parties be given NOTICE of the trial and an OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
*presence not required in the proceedings, as long as given opportunity to be heard

1. 2.
3.

an agency shall publish or circulate notices of proposed rules afford interested parties opportunity to submit their views prior to adoption of any rule in fixing rates: published proposed rates at least 2 weeks before 1st hearing in case of opposition: rules on contested cases shall be observed (chapter 3 on adjudication)

C. In Adjudicatin of Cases 1. Rules of Procedure Administrative Code, Book VII [SEC10. COMPROMISE AND ARBITRATION] Every agency encourage amicable settlement, compromise and arbitration [SEC11. NOTICE AND HEARING IN CONTESTED CASES] 1. all parties entitled to notice and hearing Notice: served at least 5 days before date of hearing state DATE, TIME and PLACE of HEARING 2. opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation 3. records of proceedings kept by agency [SEC12. RULES OF EVIDENCE] 1. admit, give probative value to evidence Commonly accepted by reasonably prudent man In conduct of their affairs 2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: may present copies or excerpts, subject to review of parties 3. right to cross-examine, submit rebuttal evidence 4. JUDICIAL NOTICE: -judicially cognizable facts -generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within the agencys specialized knowledge [SEC13. SUBPOENA] -power to require attendance of witnesses -power to require production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data UPON REQUEST+ show GENERAL RELEVANCE -INVOKE AID OF RTC to punish disobedience, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW [SEC14. DECISION] -in writing -shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based -decide case within 30 days following its submission

VINTA MARITIME V NLRC FACTS: Foreigner verbally barrated EE, allegedly the EE was given fair warning and enough opportunity to explain his gross negligence and incompetence so he was dismissed. EE filed case in POEA, POEA decided case in favor of the EE based on the mutual agreement of the parties to submit position papers and supporting papers. ER complains HELD: Opportunity to be heard through position papers sufficient, trial discretionary and cannot be demanded from the Administrative Agency.
*conduct of trial discretionary in administrative agencies (sabi ni sir unless the enabling law itself provides for trial)

SHOPPES MANILA V NLRC FACTS: ee dismissed for alleged shoplifting of Bayo apparel HELD: Hearing discretionary upon Labor Arbiter, cannot be demanded, decision could be based merely on position papers BACHRACH MOTOR V CIR FACTS: An EE dismissed for alleged violations of Motor vehicle law resulting to damage to property of company. GM of the company testified before the proceedings but left early so EEs side was not able to cross-examine the said witness HELD: If not able to cross examine the witness, the testimony could be stricken off from the records of the proceedings
*the right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witness in a judicial litigation, criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative

. 12 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
-when it affects a persons status and liberty 2. when not required -urgent reasons -when discretion is exercised by the officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact SUNTAY V PEOPLE FACTS: Suntay was charged with seduction so DFA Sec cancelled his passport HELD: not notice and hearing required because it was DFA Secs discretion to cancel his license upon an undisputed fact that justifies the cancellation, i.e. criminal charges against him -valid exercise of police power POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD V CA FACTS: PAB issued an ex parte cease and desist order based on the reports of previous inspections wherein the company was found to be discharging toxic chemicals in the river HELD: no notice and hearing needed because the situation (pollution) cannot be made o wait until protracted litigation has run its full course -protect public interest so exercise of police power c. Form and promulgation of judgment [SEC14. DECISION] -in writing -shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based -decide case within 30 days following its submission -parties notified personally or by registered mail [SEC15.FINALITY OF ORDER] -final and executory 15d after the receipt of a copy thereof of adverse party -UNLESS: admin appeal or JR -1 MFR, suspends running of period for appeal ANG TIBAY GUIDELINE (7): deci should state facts, issues and law upon which it is based, and the reasons for such decision on form of the decision INDIAS V PHIL IRON MINES FACTS: CIR rendered a decision stating that after a perusal of the records of the case, the Court finds no sufficient justification for modifying said recommendation (of the CIR hearing officer that EE was dismissed for just cause), findings and conclusions, and consequently, this case is hearby dismissed. HELD: CIR decision valid -it is not necessary to discuss own findings of fact when it is satisfied with the report of the examiner or referee which already contains a full discussion of the evidence and the findings of fact based thereon the report of the examiner was recited in the decision so not necessary
*when the findings of fact and the discussion of the evidence made by the subordinates of the judge or referee is sufficient and the judge or referee is satisfied with it then the judge could just copy it in the body of his decision

MONTEMAYOR V BUNDALIAN FACTS: DPWH official alleged to have amassed wealth from lahar funds HELD: even when not able to cross-examine the complainant, the active participation in the proceedings removed any badge of procedural infirmity UP BOR V CA FACTS: Indian citizen who took her doctoral degree in UP submitted a plagiarized dissertation. UP revoked her diploma after she graduated. HELD: Withdrawal was valid, done in accordance with due process *ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO. V CA FACTS: the appointed secretary of DANR reviewed on appeal HIS OWN DECISION HELD: The reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no review of the case RIVERA V CSC FACTS: CSC commissioner reviews her decision as a Board Chairman HELD: Zambales Chromite ulit! AMERICAN INTERFASHION CORP V OFFICE OF THE PREXI FACTS: allegedly coerced to withdraw petition before which alleged charges not supported by evidence HELD: evidence on record must be fully disclosed to the parties PEFIANCO V MORAL FACTS: Librarian of the National Library wanted a copy of the investigation committee report finding her guilty of pilferage so filed petition for mandamus HELD: mandamus would not lie

*respondents in administrative cases not entitled to be informed of the findings of the investigative committees but only of the decision of the administrative body

NAPOLCOM V BERNABE FACTS: bernabe assails decision of NAPOLCOM to dismiss him based on affidavits (without hearing) HELD: due process satisfied with Bernabes submission of a point-by-point affidavit which answered each allegation against him GOSS V LOPEZ FACTS: DP allegedly not observed when students were suspended without hearing, and cannot appeal HELD: only need some kind of notice, some kind of hearing MATTHEWS V ELRIDGE FACTS: DP allegedly violated because no full blown evidentiary hearing was held to declare the termination of benefits HELD: 3 distinct factors to be considered for administrative due process to be sufficient: 1. private interest to be affected 2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest and the probable value of additional safeguards 3. govts interest vis--vis government costs b. Notice and Hearing 1. When required -when they involve a fine/penalty/sanction [NDC V COLLECTOR] -when the law specifically requires notice and hearing [LABOR CODE]

SERRANO V PSC FACTS: PSC denied the application of Serrano to operate taxi cabs without stating the reason for doing so HELD: PSC decision invalid -Consti provision applies only to regular courts of justice but Ang Tibay Case provides a guideline that judges should render its decision in such a manner as to inform the parties the issues involved and the reasons for the decision
*applies Ang Tibay (7)

ALBERT V GANGAN FACTS: COA decision holding Albert liable did not state the facts upon which he was held liable

. 13 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

HELD: The decision must state the facts and the laws upon which the decision was based. Conclusions of law, facts and circumstances are not sufficient.
*applies Ang Tibay (7)

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
FACTS: BSI rendered decision on Sept. 11, 1961. BOC reviewed said decision and reversed BSI decision on Sept 4, 1962 but copy of the decision received Oct, and it was argued that the decision should be received by the parties concerned within the 1 year period HELD: valid reversal *the sending and receipt of the decision not necessary to be within 1 year 3. Jurisdiction Admin agencies only exercise such powers as are -explicitly conferred -necessary implication check enabling statute FELICIANO V DIRECTOR OF PATENTS FACTS: Director of patents asked to compel one of the parties to sign a contract HELD: NO JURISDICTION -the validity of the contract is a civil law question which has to be resolved in a regular court of justice SYQUIA V BOARD OF POWER AND WATERWORKS FACTS: Landlady who charged fro electricity charged with offense of selling electricity without permit HELD: NO JURISDICTION -under Public Service Act, Board has jurisdiction over Public services and their franchises BUT since Syquia is not engaged in public service nor sale of electricity without permit, no jurisdiction -the question that is purely civil in character to be adjudged under NCC by regular courts of justice GO TEK V DEPORTATION BOARD FACTS: undesirable alien, prayed for immediate deportation of Gotek for (1) being commander of US Guerilla unit; (2) Violation of A168 of RPC. Go Tek filed MD arguing that the said grounds were not among those grounds to deport an alien HELD: HAS JURISDICTION -state has inherent power to deport undesirable aliens POLICE POWERS -President has full discretion to determine desirability of alien -EO for deportation not dependent upon prior judicial determination in criminal case VERA V CUEVAS FACTS: BIR used s169 on skimmed mild to investigate on Filled milk manufacturers HELD: NO JURISDICTION -provision relied on was mere declaratory provision with no tax purpose, BIR had no jurisdiction *BIR has jurisdiction if law provides for tax purposes DE LA FUENTE V DE VEYRA FACTS: Smuggled goods confiscated by customs ordered to be released by CFI even if subject of seizure proceedings HELD: CFI has no jurisdiction -the collector of customs when sitting in a forfeiture proceeding constitutes a tribunal expressly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear and determine subject matter without any interference from CFI ***SINCE examples lang naman ung ibang cases, wag na.*** 4. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings arising from same facts GALANG V CA FACTS: illegal alien breached admin provision (not properly documented) and criminal provision (fraudulent representation as Filipino citizen)

on who should make decisions DOH V CAMPOSANO FACTS: DOH issued order dismissing charged EEs based on the resolution of the PCAGC (when SEC of DOH expressly tasked to resolve the case) HELD: cannot delegate the power to decide on the case
*applies Ang TIbay (6)

*AMERICAN TOBACCO V DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, supra FACTS: Director of patents made rule that hearing would be held by subordinates, but he would still decide on the merits of the case HELD: Valid rule, cannot delegate the power to decide on a case but can delegate the power to hear the case REALTY EXCHANGE VENTURE CORP V SENDINO FACTS: HLURB decided a case in division, not en banc HELD: Enabling law of HLURB authorized the agency to adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business. -the power to delegate a particular function can be implied from the power of administrative agencies to issue rules and regulations necessary to carry out its functions. on finality of order *VIVO V AROCHA (earlier case in BOC V DELAROSA) FACTS: board of special inquiry (BSI) decision reviewed by BOC and reversed it. CA 613 empowers BOC to review decision either upon appeal or motu proprio within 1 year. It was contested that the decision was already final when reviewed by BOC (BSI deci rendered July 6, 1961 and the BOC allegedly decided on July 6, 1962 but extenso report indicated date was July 20, 1961 which was beyond the 1 year period for review) HELD: The review was done within the 1 year period, which should be counter from the time the Commissioners as a board voted not from the time when the extenso report was prepared -decision in extenso must relate back to the day the resolution to exclude was actually adopted
*BOC wanted an earlier date (in 1962) so that its review would be within the 1 year period

NERIA V COI FACTS: Decision of BSI issued on Aug. 2, 1961. BOC reviewed the decision pursuant to CA613 and rendered a decision on Aug 8, 1962 but the records were altered to show that the decision was made Aug. 2. It was also argued that the date when the 1 year of reckoning would be made should be from September 1961 when the parties received HELD: Alteration in this case was with malice. Decision already final and executory when BOC reversed it.

*BOC wanted to show that they made the decision within 1 yr period so altered the 1962 date to an earlier date. They were arguing that the 1 year should be computed from date of receipt of the decision so that they could have until September to review the case

GO YU TAK WAI V VIVO FACTS: BSI decision finding that Go Yu Tak Wai waas a Filipino citizen rendered Mar 27, 1961. BOI reviewed BSI decision and rendered deci on Mar 11, 1962 excluding petitioner. Extenso report prepared only on Aug 1963. It was argued that the date of preparation of the written decision should also be within the 1 year period HELD: NO. Vivo v Arocha case already held that date of preparation of extenso relates back to the day when the Commissioners voted and resolved to reverse BSI decision
*preparation of written decision not necessary to be within 1 year

SICHANGCO V BOC

. 14 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

HELD: The difference in the proceedings is not legal incompatibility but merely physical incompatibility (cannot be tried simultaneously since there is only 1 accused that would be required to appear before 2 separate courts) -2 proceedings independent of each other, involves different COA, can proceed simultaneously
*physical incompatibility

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
***So summary on on-the-spot ocular surveys: Ocular surveys are proper only when 1. courts finds it necessary in clearing a doubt, reaching a conclusion or finding the truth [phil. Movie pictures v premiere] 2. there are other supporting evidences which might be conflicting [estate of buan v pambusco] V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS -an effective mechanism of checks and balance -usually involves (1) question of constitutionality (2) history of the statute involved (3) nature of the problem -right or privilege -question of law or question of fact only questions of law -question of discretion not reviewable unless with GAD -question of policy not reviewable *BEFORE JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE RESORTED TO, DETERMINE 1. if could be subject to review 2. if administrative remedies already exhausted 3. if there is concurrence of original jurisdiction over the issue, which court would decide 4. if the party seeking JR has standing Factors affecting finality of administrative decisions SWITCHMENS UNION V NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD FACTS: Unions wanted a different bargaining representative for each bargaining unit but after an election, employees elected that they wanted one union to represent all of them. Union wanted a review of the Boards order of election HELD: Courts cannot review decision of the board? *Where no judicial review was provided by Congress (in the enabling law) the SC has often refused to furnish one even where questions of law might be involved (since executive agencies were delegated to determine complicated questions of fact and of law). *Where congress has not expressly authorized judicial review: when JR may still be supplied: (1) type of problem involved (Question of law/fact/discretion/policy) (2) history of statute in question (WON Congress intended JR)
*JR cant be conducted if Congress did not intend review of agencys actions

VILLANOS V SUBIDO FACTS: teacher made libelous statements against superintendent so charged with libel (crim case) and discourtesy and immoral conduct (admin case). She was found guilty of libel so it was argued that she should also be found guilty of the administrative charges against her HELD: CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASE NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKES THE RESPONDENT GUILTY IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE - there are defenses, excuses, and attenuating circumstances of value in administrative proceedings that are not admissible in trial of the criminal case which can have a blunting effect on the conviction.
*no automatic conviction when criminally convicted

POLCOM v LOOD FACTS: Police officers guilty in administrative case, acquitted in criminal case because of insufficiency of evidence. Theyre arguing that they should be reinstated because their guilt was not proven in crim case. HELD: acquittal in criminal case does not carry with it relief from administrative liability.
*acquittal in criminal case has no effect on administrative case

A.

OCAMPO V OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FACTS: training coordinator of NAICONSULT acquitted in criminal proceedings. He was dismissed from service (guilty in admin case) but he appealed, saying that his acquittal from crim proceedings should automatically dismiss the admin case against him HELD: acquittal in crim case no effect on admin case Difference - quantum of evidence required: guilt beyond reasonable doubt vs preponderance of evidence vs substantial evidence - procedure required - admissibility of evidence -sanctions imposed 5. Rules of evidence -apply specific rules of evidence of administrative agency -administrative agencies not bound by technical rules of evidence, so long as due process is observed (Ang Tibay v CIR case also mentioned that admin agencies not bound by technical rules in ordinary courts as long as due process is observed) -reason: flexibility and speed in dispensing with cases PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS ASSN V PREMIER PRODUCTION FACTS: CIR conducted an ocular inspection and on that basis authorized lay-off of EEs HELD: ocular inspection is proper if the court finds it necessary but such is authorized ONLY TO HELP the court in clearing a doubt, reaching a conclusion or finding the truth. It is merely an auxiliary remedy. ESTATE OF BUAN V PAMBUSCO FACTS: Estate applies for CPC but Pambusco assails the application, alleging that there are sufficient routes already. Commission conducted an on-the-spot survey and decided the case HELD: here, on the spot survey was proper since it was only used to confirm which among the conflicting evidences presented by the party is true

CHEVRON V NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL FACTS: Agency provided own definition of stationary source of air pollution when the enabling law did not do so. CA set aside said regulations HELD: Court cannot review definition given by agency -If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. -A court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision or a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator or agency
*JR cannot be exercised when the action involves the filling-up function of the agency (when there is a valid delegation to ascertain facts and provide interpretative rules)

FORTRICH V CORONA FACTS: Sumilao farmers case. Earlier resolution decided that land should be converted and developed. After lapse of period to appeal (And no appeal was made), Office of the President modified its decision. HELD: Modification VOID. -when no MFR seasonably filed, agencies decision final and executory and cannot be reviewed. The orderly administration of justice requires the judgments of courts and quasi-judicial agencies reach a point of finality set by law, rules, and regulations
*JR cannot be done when judgment to be reviewed already final and executory

. 15 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

ANITQUE SAWMILL V ZAYCO FACTS: public bidding already final when MFR filed beyond reglementary period. HELD: MFR which was entertained VOID -non quieta movera: cannot disturb what is settled -although technical rules may be relaxed in administrative agencies in the interest of justice and equity, a period for appeal is JURISdICTIONAL, MANDATORY so cannot be relaxed
*Administrative agencies also observe strict compliance of reglementary periods

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
GAD Error of law Fraud or collusion Act violates or fails to comply with mandatory provision of law (6) Act corrupt, arbitrary or capricious *JR when admin agencies exercise QJ or legislative functions SUMMARY GENERAL RULE: Courts may not review administrative actions ESPECIALLY WHEN (1) the enabling law does not provide for it and the Congress did not intend the actions to be reviewed (SWITCHMEN V NMB) (2) the action involved is an exercise of the agency of the Congress valid delegation of the power to fill-up gaps in the enabling law (CHEVRON V NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL) (3) the action is already FINAL and EXECUTORY (FORTRICH V CORONA) (4) the action involved exercise of discretion (UY v PALOMAR, SOTTO V RUIZ) (5) the action involves quasi-judicial or legislative powers of the administrative agency (MANUEL V VILLENA, SMC V SOLE) (6) NO EXHAUSTIN OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES YET! Reasoning: Administrative agencies are deemed to be equipped with technical knowledge to determine administrative questions and nonlegal matters (MANUEL V VILLENA) EXCEPTION (mostly enumerated in SMC v SOLE case): (1) when admin agency exceeded its authority or jurisdiction (2) when there is GAD acted arbitrarily without regard to duty (3) when error of law involved (4) fraud or collusion (5) act violates law, or constitution B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies *PASCUAL V PROVINCIAL BOARD FACTS: Pascual, elected mayor, was charged admistratively. Sought writ of prohibition from SC, CFI. HELD: No need for exhaustion of administrative remedies GR: Where the law has delineated the procedure by which administrative appeal or remedy could be effected, the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated X: rule of exhaustion will be relaxed where (1) GAD (2) Question in dispute is purely legal one, nothing of an administrative nature to be or can be done (3) Steps to be taken are mere matters of form and the administrative process (of judgment) is over (4) Administrative remedy is not exclusive but merely cumulative or concurrent to judicial remedy (optional) ALZATE V ALDANA FACTS: Pending appeal, petitioner filed petition for mandamus for fear that the salary he was supposed to receive would be reverted to the general funds of the Government if not disbursed. HELD: No need to exhaust administrative remedies X: requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies would effect to nullification of claim CIPRIANO V MARCELINO FACTS: Petitioner deprived of her salary after resigning, filed petitione for mandamus for treasurer to pay her salary. HELD: No need to exhaust administrative remedies X: doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies should be relaxed when application may cause great and irreparable damage, oppressive and patently unreasonable (because if (2) (3) (4) (5)

SOTTO V RUIZ FACTS: Director of posts refuses to mail publication of Sotto for containing libelous matters HELD: Director of posts wrong! -although exercised discretion which is generally not subject to JR, actions of administrative officers must be subject to revision by courts in case he had abused his discretion or exceeded his authority
*JR available even if review of exercise of discretion when (1) abused his discretion; (2) exceeded his authority

*UY V PALOMAR FACTS: Director of posts refuses to mail Uys mail for allegedly being a lottery HELD: Director of posts wrong -The action of administrative officer exercising discretion is subject to review by the courts in case he exceeded his authority or his act is palpably wrong, notwithstanding the absence of statutory provisions for such review

*JR still available (even if exercise of discretion + Congress silent on JR) if action is (1) exceeded authority or (2) act is palpably wrong

***RULE ON JR ON EXERCISE OF DISCRETION OF ADMIN. AGENCIES: GR: NO JR when admin agencies exercise discretion EXCEPTION: (1) act is palpably wrong (2) exceeded authority [just use UY v PALOMAR] *MANUEL V VILLENA FACTS: Petitioner seeks annulment of decision of Director of Public Forestry which dismissed the protest filed by the petitioner HELD: GR: courts refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of their administrative functions since they are better equipped technically to decide administrative questions and nonlegal factors X: (1) exceeded authority (2) exercised unconstitutional powers (3) clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty (GAD) (4) decision vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake *JR on ordinary exercise of administrative functions *SMC V SOLE FACTS: EE allegedly violated company policy by buying the drugs given to his co-EEs, and was dismissed. DOLE ruled in favor of the EE. HELD: SUMMARY GR: there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize acts of administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. -purpose of JR : (1) keep admin agency within its jurisdiction (2) protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions X: when JR proper (1) lack of jurisdiction

. 16 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

exhaust, inflation would render her salary due to be not worth much) CORPUZ V CUADERNO FACTS: CB EE dismissed, filed case before CFI for certiorari HELD: no need to exhaust administrative remedies X: doctrine not applicable when enabling law does not provide for administrative remedies. CS law cannot apply even if this covers government body because CB has own charter. PAREDES V CA FACTS: Director of patents promulgated new rules. Registered patent agents filed petition for prohibition to enjoin enforcement of new rules HELD: should have exhausted -where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review, and provides a system of administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts, FOR REASONS OF LAW, COMITY, and CONVENIENCE, will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given opportunity to act and correct errors committed in the administrative forum. QUASHA V SEC FACTS: petitioners filed complaints with SEC but without resorting to the procedure in SEC, appealed case with SC HELD: no need to exhaust X: when recourse would not be a plain, speedy and adequate remedy REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Sequestration case. Only after 7 years did PCGG invoke the doctrine of administrative remedies HELD: No need to exhaust X: (1) estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine (2) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal amounting to lack of jurisdiction (3) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainang (4) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice *LOPEZ V CITY OF MANILA FACTS: Taxpayer assailed City ordinance increasing taxes on his land HELD: should have exhausted X (addition to PAAT v CA) 1. Claim involved is so small (like in Cipriano v Marcelino) 2. strong public interest involved *SMART V NTC FACTS: parties assail constitutionality f NTC Circular HELD: No need to exhaust administrative remedies -doctrine applies ONLY WHERE THE ACT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CONCERNED WAS PERFORMED PURSUANT TO ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION, not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. X: no need to exhaust administrative remedies when (1) act pertains to rule-making or quasi-legislative power; (2) constitutionality of said rule is in question *ESTRADA V CA FACTS: petitioners seek to nullify lease contract that would cause pollution to Subic HELD: should exhaust administrative remedies GR: exhaust administrative remedies Reasoning: (1) lesser expenses (2) speedier disposition of controversies (3) reasons of comity and convenience

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~
(4) give administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and to dispose of the case X: (1) violation of due process (2) purely legal question involved (3) action patently illegal, excess in jurisdiction (4) estoppel on the part of the agency concerned (5) irreparable injury (6) when respondent is a department secretary whose acts bears the implied and assumed approval of the President (therefore, no need to appeal up to the president) (7) unreasonable if exhaust (8) amount to nullification of the claim (9) subject matter is private land in a land case proceedings (10) rule does not provide for a PSA remedy (11) when there are circumstances indicating urgency of JR same with PAAT v CA plus: (12) no administrative review is provided by law (13) rule of qualified political agency applies (14) issue of non-exhaustion of admin remedies moot *pinakasummary *REGINO V PANGASINAN COLLEGES FACTS: student not allowed to take exams for failing to pay P100 ticket for rave party, filed for damages HELD: no need to exhaust X: doctrine not applicable when complaint is for damages governed by NCC C. Primary Jurisdiction -court of justice and administrative agency BOTH HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over a case -primary jurisdiction because when both have jurisdiction over the case, the case is handed over to the administrative agency which is deemed to have primary jurisdiction to hear the case *TEXAS & PACIFIC V ABILENE FACTS: Abilene sued T&P for excessive rates before TC. T&P argued that ICC has jurisdiction to hear case regarding propriety of rates HELD: ICC has primary jurisdiction -GR: courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one which requires the expertise of administrative agencies and the legislative intent on the matter is to have UNIFORMITY OF RULINGS. -can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the administrative agency -it is a question of the court yielding to the agency because of the latters agency and DOES NOT AMOUNT TO OUSTER of the court X: If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction not primary jurisdiction but exclusive and original jurisdiction *PHIL.GLOBALCOM V RELOVA FACTS: PhilGlobe applied for authority to establish a branch in Cebu but was opposed. Respondents filed PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF before TC HELD: Petition for declaratory relief PROPER GR: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction calls for application when there is such competence to act on the part of the administrative body X: legal question which is more appropriate for the judiciary than the administrative agency to resolve VIADAD V RTC FACTS: teachers dismissed for failing to comply with returnto-work orders. Filed petition for prohibition

. 17 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

HELD: doctrine applies (although there is no concurrence in jurisdiction) EFFECT OF DOCTRINE: It behooves the court to suspend its action on the case pending before it pending the final outcome of the administrative proceedings. INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES V CA FACTS: IEI entered a MOA with the MMIC wherein IEI assigned its rights over the mining block. IEI filed case for rescission with RTC to rescind MOA. BED has jurisdiction to determine who could develop said mining blocks HELD: doctrine applies -doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when proceedings initiated with courts but admin agency also has jurisdiction over the case and then the question involved requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative agency: (1) technical matters; (2) intricate questions of facts involved -EFFECT: merely suspend judicial proceedings, does not dismiss it CONRAD V CA FACTS: Dispute over the use of the tradename SUNSHINE BISCUITS. The tradename was already registered with BPTTT then the losing party filed suit with RTC for injunction with damages HELD: doctrine DOES NOT APPLY X: the issue involved is clearly a factual question that does not require specialized skills and knowledge for resolution to justify the exercise of primary jurisdiction PHIL VETERANS BANK V CA FACTS: Appealed just compensation for land of PVB HELD: DAR has jurisdiction, not RTC -even if concurrent jurisdiction, decision rendered in admin agencys primary jurisdiction is still subject to review of the ordinary courts D. Standing to Challenge

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

. 18 .