ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

A. General principles
What are the doctrines relative to Administrative
Law?

• a. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction - The Courts cannot or will not

determine a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that
question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling
is essential to comply with the premises of the regulatory statute
administered. (Lihaylihay vs. Tan, G.R. No. 192223, July 23, 2018)
• The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the determination of
administrative questions, which ordinarily questions of fact, by
administrative agencies rather courts of justice. (Cruz, Philippine
Administrative Law, 2016)
• b. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies – Where a
remedy before an administrative agency is provided, the
administrative agency concerned must be given the opportunity to
decide a matter within its jurisdiction before an action is brought to
the courts. (Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson, G.R. No. 191787, June 22, 2015);
• c. Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action - No resort to courts
will be allowed unless administrative action has been completed and
there is nothing left to be done in administrative structure. (Magalang
vs. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No.
190566, December 11, 2013)
• d. Doctrine of Res Judicata – A final judgment on the merits rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of
the parties and their privies, and constitutes an absolute bar to
subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of
action. (Brillantes vs. Castro, G.R. No. L-9223, June 30, 1956)
B. Powers of administrative
agencies
What are the powers of administrative bodies?

• a. Quasi-Legislative or Rule-Making Power – the exercise of delegated

legislative power, involving no discretion as to what the law shall be, but
merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a
policy set out on the law itself (Republic of the Philippines vs. Drugmakers
Lab. Inc., G.R. No. 190837, March 5, 2014);
• b. Quasi-Judicial or Adjudicatory Power – the power to hear and
determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to
decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in
enforcing and administering the same law (Smart Telecommunications, Inc.
vs. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 151908, August 12,
2003); and
• c. Determinative Power (Cruz, Administrative Law, 2007).
1. Quasi-legislative (rule-
making) power
Differentiate Quasi-Legislative and Quasi-Judicial
powers.
a. Kinds of administrative
rules and regulations
What are the kinds of administrative rules and
regulations?
1. SUPPLEMENTARY - Those which only supply details, also known as
detailed legislation.
2. INTERPRETATIVE - Those that do no more than to interpret a statute.
These are given weight and respect but are not conclusive to the
courts.
3. CONTINGENT - Those which determine when a statute will go into
effect. Power to ascertain the happening of such facts may be
delegated to administrative agencies.
4. PROCEDURAL - Those which describe the method by which the
agency will carry out its appointed functions
5. INTERNAL - Those issued by a superior administrative or executive
officer to his subordinates for the proper and efficient administration of
law.
6. PENAL - Those that carry out penal or criminal sanctions for violation
of the same.
b. Requisites for validity
What are the requisites for valid administrative
issuances?

a. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;

b. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature;
c. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed
procedure;
d. It must be reasonable.
e. It must be published with a copy of which submitted to the Office of
National Administrative Regula-tions (ONAR). (Dagan vs. Philippine
Racing Commission, G.R. No. 175220, February 12, 2009)
What are the requisites of a valid administrative
regulations with a penal sanction?

a. The law itself must make violation of the administrative regulation

punishable;
b. The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation
of the regulation; and
c. The regulation must be published. (Hon. Secretary Perez vs. LPG
Refillers Association of the Philippines, GR No. 159149, June 26, 2006)
 2. Quasi-judicial
(adjudicatory) power
a. Administrative due
process
What is administrative due process?
The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the
opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.
As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before
judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met.
What is offensive to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be
heard. (Flores v. Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146, 2011)
A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of
the preliminary findings and recommendations; he is entitled only to a
reasonable opportunity to be heard, and to the administrative decision
based on substantial evidence. (Valasquez v. CA, G.R. No. 150732,
2004)
What are the rights of persons in administrative
proceedings.?
1. The RIGHT TO A HEARING, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit
evidence in support thereof.
2. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own INDEPENDENT
CONSIDERATION of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views
of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
3. The decision must be based on the EVIDENCE PRESENTED at the hearing or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
4. The DECISION must have something to support itself.
5. The tribunal must CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE presented.
6. Evidence supporting the conclusion must be SUBSTANTIAL.
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding can KNOW the various ISSUES involved and the
REASONS for the decision rendered. (Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L-46496, 1940)
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies.
a. Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
b. Where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
c. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
d. Where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
e. Where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
justice;
f. Where judicial intervention is urgent;
g. When its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
h. Where the controverted acts violate due process;
i. When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;
j. When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
k. When strong public interest is involved; and
l. In quo warranto proceedings. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007).
Is the power to issue subpoena inherent to
administrative bodies?

• No. It is settled that these bodies may summon witnesses and require
the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and
always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to
investigate.
• (Evangelista v. Jarencio, GR No. L-29274, November 27, 1975)
Can a PMA cadet under investigation for Honor
Code Violation invoke the right to counsel?
• NO
• There is nothing in the 1987 Constitution stating that a party in a non litigation
proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel The assistance of a lawyer, while
desirable, is not indispensable
• A party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel,
irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent's capacity to represent
himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with
counsel
• Hence, the PMA as an administrative body is under no duty to provide the person with
counsel because assistance of counsel is not an absolute requirement ..[First Class
Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia vs The Superintendent of the PMA, G R No 211362 25 February
2015
b. Administrative appeal and
review
How do you appeal Administrative Actions?

• Appeal may be taken from the final decision of the Agency to the
Department Head within 15 days after the receipt of the copy of the
decision. The appeal’s effect shall stay the decision appealed unless
the appellate agency provides otherwise
c. Administrative res judicata
Will “res judicata” apply to cases involving exercise
of administrative power?
As a rule, the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi judicial
proceedings, and not to the exercise of administrative powers ..[Montemayor v
Bundalian, 453 Phil 158 169 2003

As an exception, when the administrative proceedings take on an adversary character,

the doctrine of res judicata certainly applies As held in the case of Fortich v Corona 52
Phil 461 1998

The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially
determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi judicial
acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their
jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general judicial powers
Give an example of the application of
administrative res judicata.
• The principle of res judicata is applicable in labor relations
proceedings which are “non-litigious and summary in nature without
regard to legal technicalities obtaining in courts of law.” (Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, Sec. 5, Rule XIII, Book V)
• That in which the statute makes or attempts to make a court a part of
the administrative scheme by providing in terms or effect that the
court, on review of the action of an administrative agency.
When is res judicata not applicable?

It is not applicable in:

1. Citizenship cases (Zita Ngo Burca v. Republic, G.R. No. 122226, 1998
& United Pepsi Cola v. Laguesma, G.R. No. L-24252, 1973)
2. When WCC Referee awards the employee less than what the law
provides (BF Goodrich v. WCC, G.R. No. L-42319,1978)
 3. Fact-finding, investigative,
licensing, and rate-fixing powers
What is investigatory power?

Investigatory power is the power to inspect, secure, or require the

disclosure of information by means of accounts, records, reports,
statements and testimony of witnesses.
This power is implied and not inherent in administrative agencies. (Sec
of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, 2000).
 C. Doctrines of primary
jurisdiction and exhaustion of
administrative remedies
What is the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction?
1. Courts cannot determine a controversy, which requires the expertise,
specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies
because technical matters of intricate questions of fact are involved.
2. Relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a
remedy will be supplied by the court, even if the matter is within the
jurisdiction of a court. (Republic of the Philippines v. Martinez, G.R. No.
158253, 2007).
Mateo v DAR, February 15 2017
• The application of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the
case in the court but only for its suspension until after the matters
within the competence of the administrative body are threshed out
and determined
When is the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction not applicable?

1. Congress does not intend that the issues be left solely to the
administrative agency for initial determination;
2. When issues involve questions of law; and
3. When courts and administrative agencies have concurrent
jurisdiction. (Republic of the Philippines v. Martinez, G.R. No. 158253,
2007).
What is the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies?

It is the general rule that an administrative ' decision must first be

appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest level before
it may be elevated to a court of justice for review. It is a condition
precedent that must be complied with.
(Sps. Sadang v. CA, G.R. No. 140138, 2006).
 When is the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies not applicable?
1. If it should appear that an IRREPARABLE DAMAGE will be suffered by a party unless resort to
the court is immediately made.
2. When the respondent is the ALTER EGO of the President
3. When no administrative REVIEW is provided as a condition precedent for court action
4. Where insistence on its observance would result in the NULLIFICATION of the claim asserted
5. When there was NO DECISION rendered
6. When there are special circumstances demanding immediate JUDICIAL INTERVENTION
7. When the administrative remedy is PERMISSIVE or concurrent
8. When the question raised is ESSENTIALLY AND PURELY LEGAL
9. When strong PUBLIC INTEREST is involved
10. Where the issue raised is the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the statute, rule or regulation
11. Where it is a civil action for DAMAGES
12. Where the officer acted in utter DISREGARD OF DUE PROCESS
13. When there is NO OTHER plain, speedy, adequate REMEDY
14. When act complained of is PATENTLY ILLEGAL
15. When the administrative body or the person invoking the doctrine is in
ESTOPPEL
16. When there is long-continued and UNREASONABLE DELAY
17. When the subject of controversy is PRIVATE LAND
18. When the controversy involves POSSESSORY ACTION involving public
lands
19. When the claim involved is SMALL so that to require exhaustion would be
oppressive and unreasonable
20. In QUO WARRANTO proceedings
What is the doctrine of finality of administrative
action?

• It provides that courts are reluctant to interfere with actions of an

administrative agency prior to its completion or finality. Absent a final
order or decision, power has not been fully and finally exercised, and
there can usually be no irreparable harm.
• (Mendiola v. CSC, G.R. No. 100671, 1993).
When is the doctrine of finality of administrative
action not applicable?
1. To grant relief to preserve STATUS QUO pending further action by the
administrative agency;
1. Essential to the PROTECTION OF RIGHTS asserted;
2. When ALLOWED by law;
3. When the order is NOT REVIEWABLE and the complainant will suffer great
and obvious DAMAGE if the order is carried out;
4. An INTERLOCUTORY ORDER affecting the merits of a controversy;
5. An administrative officers acts in VIOLATION of constitution and other laws
and
6. To an order made in EXCESS of power, contrary to specific prohibitions in
the statute.
How should the court view administrative findings?

Factual findings made by quasi-judicial bodies and administrative

agencies when supported by substantial evidence are accorded great
respect and even finality by the appellate courts.
This is because administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge
and expertise in their respective fields.
As such, their findings of fact are binding upon the Court unless there
is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, or where it is clearly shown
that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on
record. (Japson v. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 189479, 2011)