C2017

Administrative Law
Midterm Reviewer
Prepared by:
Andre Cayosa
Tim Jimenez
Ton Rivera
Sol Vicencio
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
CONCEPT, GENERALLY
Administrative Law has been defined in its widest sense as the entire
system of laws under which the machinery of the State works and by
which the Stat performs all government acts (De Leon
It is generally understood as that part of the law which governs the
organization, functions, and procedures of administrative agencies of
the government to which (quasi) legislative powers are delegated and
(quasi) judicial powers are granted, and the extent and manner to
which such agencies are subject to control by the courts. (De Leon)
It is the branch of public law which fixes the organization of
government and determines the competence of the administrative
authorities who execute the law, and indicates to the individual
remedies for the violation of his rights. (Goodnow, cited in Rodriguez)
General Terms
Definition of Terms under the Administrative Code
Section 2. General Terms Defined. - Unless the specific words of the
text, or the context as a whole, or a particular statute, shall require a
different meaning:
(1) Government of the Republic of the Philippines - refers to the
corporate governmental entity through which the functions of
government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save
as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through
which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether
pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal
or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.
(2) National Government - refers to the entire machinery of the
central government, as distinguished from the different forms of local
1
governments.
(3) Local Government - refers to the political subdivisions established
by or in accordance with the Constitution.
(4) Agency of the Government - refers to any of the various units of
the Government, including a department, bureau, office,
instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporations, or
a local government or a distinct unit therein.
(5) National Agency - refers to a unit of the National Government.
(6) Local Agency - refers to a local government or a distinct unit
therein.
(7) Department - refers to an executive department created by law.
For purposes of Book IV, this shall include any instrumentality, as
herein defined, having or assigned the rank of a department,
regardless of its name or designation.
(8) Bureau - refers to any principal subdivision or unit of any
department. For purposes of Book IV, this shall include any principal
subdivision or unit of any instrumentality given or assigned the rank
of a bureau, regardless of actual name or designation, as in the case
of department-wide regional offices.
(9) Office - refers, within the framework of governmental
organization, to any major functional unit of a department or bureau
including regional offices. It may also refer to any position held or
occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by law or
regulation.
Notes:
An administrative agency is described as a body endowed
with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers to enable to
enforce laws. It is also described as an organ of government,
excluding legislature and the courts, which affects the rights
of private parties either through its rule-making and
adjudication.
 A department refers to an executive department created by Individual Rights Its chief concern is the protection of private rights
law. and its subject matter is the nature and mode of exercise of
Bureau refers to any principal subdivision or unit of any administrative power and the system of relief against administrative
department. action.
An office refers to any major functional unit of a department
or bureau or any position held.
An instrumentality is any agency of the National Government Administrative Law vis--vis
not integrated within the department framework. Administrative Law as distinguished from the following
Chartered institutions are agencies organized or operating 1. The law - Law is impersonal command provided with sanctions
under a special charter and vested by law with functions to be applied in case of violation, while administration is
relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. preventive rather than punitive and is accepted to be more
Government-Owned or Controlled Operations refer to (1) any personal than law. Law maintains a watchful eye on those
agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation (2) who would violate its order. While administration on the
vested with functions relating to public needs whether other hand seeks to spare individuals from punishments of
governmental or proprietary in nature and (3) owned by the the law by persuading him to observe its commands.
Government directly or through its instrumentalities, wholly 2. Constitutional Law
or to the extent of at least 51% of its capital stocks Constitutional Law Administrative law
Treats of rights Treats of rights from the
Branch of Government Principally Involved Executive Branch standpoint of government
powers and duties
Section 17, Article VII, 1987 Constitution General plan or framework Carries out general plan in
Sec. 17. Control over administrative agencies.The President shall of governmental minute detail
have control over all the executive departments, bureaus, and organization
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Prescribes limitations to Indicates remedies for
power of government violation of rights
Concerns of Administrative Law Necessary supplement of
constitutional law; also
Administrative law is concerned with complements constitutional
Powers of Government Administrative law is concerned with officers law insofar as it determines
and agencies exercising delegated powers. It is concerned with and the rules relative to the
results from a fusion of different types of governmental powers in activity of the
certain public officers which are part of the executive branch since the administrative authorities
exercise of these powers runs afoul of the fundamental and traditional 3. Criminal Law
principle of separation of powers. Criminal Law Administrative law

2
 Consists of a body of penal May have penal sanctions in government--controlled corporations or agencies, like the Central
sanctions which are applied so far as to enforce a rule of Bank.
in all branches of law administrative law Local Government Sec. 2 (3) Local Government - refers to the political
4. Public Officers (Administration) subdivisions established by or in accordance with the Constitution.
Public Administration Administrative law Agencies Sec. 2 (4) Agency of the Government - refers to any of the
Has to do with the practical While seemingly various units of the Government, including a department, bureau,
management and direction synonymous with public office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled
of various organs of the administration, it only truly corporations, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.
State deals with the external
aspect of public
Sources of Administrative Law
administration.
1. Constitution Some agencies are created by constitutional
Government (Definition) provisions which may be self-executing (COMELEC, COA, CSC)
but most are from legislative enactments. The Constitutional
National Government Sec. 2 (2) National Government - refers to the agencies are insulated from the influence of the three
entire machinery of the central government, as distinguished from branches of government and cannot be abolished unless the
the different forms of local governments. Constitution is amended.
2. Law - Some administrative agencies are of statutory origin
Central Bank of the Phil. v CA (1975) (e.g. Social Security Act, NLRC, GSIS, POEA etc.) These
F: Central Bank tried to exculpate itself from honoring a contract agencies are subject to expansion or contraction of their
with a private company as the latter did not comply with the powers and functions, or to reorganization or abolition at the
requirements set forth by the RAC. will of Congress, hamstrung only by constitutional limitations.
H: The SC held that the requirements do not apply to the CB (De Leon)
because it is not included in National Government and is actually a 3. Judicial Decisions decisions of courts interpreting the
Government instrumentality, created as an autonomous body charters of administrative bodies, defining their power, rights,
governed by its charter. inhibitions, among others, and the effect of their
determination
"National Government" refers only to the central government,
consisting of the legislative, executive and Judicial departments of Article 8, Civil Code Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or
the government, as distinguished from local governments and interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of
other governmental entities and is not synonymous, therefore, the legal system of the Philippines.
with the terms "The Government of the Republic of the Philippines" 4. Rules and Regulations issued by the administrative bodies in
or "Philippine Government", which are the expressions broad pursuance of the purposes for which they were created
enough to include not only the central government but also the
provincial and municipal governments chartered cities and other

3
 5. Administrative Decisions determinations and orders of the
administrative bodies in the settlement of controversies
arising in their respective fields.
Separation of Powers, Delegation of Powers
Separation of powers
Separation of powers
The Constitution strictly provides for separation of powers among the
legislative, executive and the judicial branches of government,
precluding one branch of the government from exercising or invading
the powers of another.
Duties of the Three Branches of Government:
Legislative: To Make the law or Enact laws.
Executive: To Promulgate or Execute the law.
Judiciary: To Interpret or Construe the law.
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of
government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual
division in our Constitution.
Ultimate aim is to prevent abuse.
Not absolute separation, but more of allocation of powers.
System of Checks and Balances.
Blending of powers - An exact delineation of governmental powers,
however, is not possible. Separation of power does not mean
complete separation there may be a certain degree of blending or
admixture of powers, particularly in administrative agencies.
Exclusive exercise of assigned powers - The true meaning of separation
of powers is that the powers assigned to one department should not
be exercised by another department, and that no department ought
to possess an overruling influence or control over the others.
4
Meralco v. Pasay Trans Co. (1932)
F: The SC is being asked to sit as the board of arbitrators to fix the
terms of usage of a bridge by various transportation companies.
H: The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of
the three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power
and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court.
Usurpation by any other department is not allowed and the
branches should confine its own sphere of influence to the powers
expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act.
Noblejas v. Tehankee (1968)
F: Noblejas, Commissioner of Land registration, says that only the
SC can remove him as he has the same emoluments as that of a
judge.
H: If the legislature intended for Noblejas to be under the
supervision of the SC, it would be unconstitutional as it would
violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers by
charging the court with administrative functions of supervisory
control, and reduce that same power exercised by the Executive
over such officials.
Abakada v. Ermita (2005)
F: Petitioners question 3 laws which give the President stand-by
authority to increase the rate of VAT.
H: Purely legislative power, which can never be delegated, has been
described as the authority to make a complete law complete as
to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be
applicable and to determine the expediency of its enactment. It is
the nature of the power, and not the liability of its use or the
manner of its exercise, which determines the validity of its
delegation. This is not delegation but a delegation of ascertainment
of facts.
 Delegation of Powers
Doctrine of non-delegation of powers
This rule follows as a necessary corollary of the doctrine of separation
of powers, prohibits delegation of legislative power, vesting of judicial
officers with non-judicial functions, and investing of non-judicial
officers with judicial powers.
It is based on the maxim potestas delegate non potest delegari which
means what has been delegated cannot in turn be delegated. A
delegated power also constitutes a duty to be performed by the
delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment ad not through
the intervening mind of another.
General Rule: Congress may not delegate to administrative agencies
the legislative powers vested in it except when authorized by the
Constitution.
Doctrine of non-delegation of powers not absolute
The doctrine of separation of power does not preclude a certain
degree of admixture if the three powers. There is a need for
delegation of powers to administrative agency because (1) the
legislature is incapable of defining the multitudinous details (2) there
matters that require more specialized knowledge and expertise
possessed by administrative agencies (3)
What can be delegated: The discretion to determine how the law may
be enforced, not what the law shall be.
Requisites for delegation
(1) Completeness of Statute - This means that the law must be
complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature so that when it reaches the delegate, it will have
nothing to do but to enforce it.
5
(2) Sufficiency of Standard - The law must offer a sufficient
standard to specify the limits of the delegates authority,
announce the legislative policy and specify the conditions
under which it is to be implemented.
People v. Vera (1937)
F: Petitioner and applicant for pardon assails a law which allows the
provincial government to only open probation boards if they
approve the budget for probation officers.
H: In testing whether a statute constitutions and undue delegation
of legislative power, it must be determined whether the statute was
complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the
legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment of any other
appointee or delegate of the legislature. An act of the legislature is
incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule or
definite standard by which the administrative officer or board may
be guided in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to
it.
Pelaez v. Auditor General (1965)
F: The President enacted several EOs creating 33 municipalities
pursuant to Sec. 68 of the RAC.
H: Sec 68 does not enunciate any policy to be carried out or
implemented by the President. Neither does it give a standard
sufficiently precise to avoid the evil effects above referred to.
ABAKADA v. Ermita (supra)
In every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing
that the delegation itself is valid or (a) is complete in itself, setting
forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a standard the limits
of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable to which
the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks
its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency
to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the
legislative command is to be effected
Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA (1988)
F: Employment agency assails power of POEA to issue memos and
circulars as undue delegation of legislative power.
H: What can be delegated is how the law is enforced, NOT what the
law should be. There is valid delegation as the law is complete and
it has sufficient standards. Fair and equitable employment
practices constitutes sufficient standards as basis for the POEAs
rules.
Bureau of Customs Employees v. Teves (2011)
F: The constitutionality of the Attrition Act is assailed as undue
delegation of legislative power.
H: The principle of non-delegation of powers admit of certain
exceptions in the face of the increasing complexity of modern life.
Given the volume and variety of interactions in todays society, it is
doubtful that the legislature can promulgate laws that deal
adequately with and respond promptly to the minutiae of everyday
life. It just has to pass the completeness and sufficient standard
test. It is complete in its terms and to optimize the revenue-
generation capability and collection of the BIR and BOC is sufficient
standard.
Non-delegation of Powers
General Rule (See notes in previous topic)
ABAKADA v. Ermita (supra)
The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three
great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is
supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated
6
sphere. A logical corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers
is the principle of non-delegation of powers, as expressed in the
Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest which means
"what has been delegated, cannot be delegated."
Exceptions (expressly allowed by the Constitution)
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the president
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 28 (2) - The Congress may, by law,
authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject
to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates,
import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government.
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the president
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 23 (2) - In times of war or other national
emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for
a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe,
to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared
national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment
thereof.
(3) Delegation to the people at large
Constitution, Art. 32 - The Congress shall, as early as possible,
provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the
exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and
enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed
by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a
petition therefor signed by at least ten per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters
thereof.
(4) Delegation to local governments
Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 3 - The Congress shall enact a local
government code which shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system
of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative,
and referendum, allocate among the different local government
units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for
the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term,
salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and
all other matters relating to the organization and operation of
the local units.
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies
Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 5 - Section 5. Each local government
unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues
and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines
and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with
the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and
charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments
(see also: Art. X, Sections 10, 18, and 20
Edu v. Ericta (1970)
F: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Reflector Law
requiring vehicle owners to have reflectors.
H: It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of
separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative
power to the two other branches of the government, subject to the
exception that local governments may over local affairs participate
in its exercise.
Chiongbian v. Orbos (1995)
F: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of a law authorizing the
President to merge by administrative determinations regions eft
after the organization of ARMM for being undue legislation of
legislative power.
H: While the power to merge administrative regions is not expressly
provided for in the Constitution, it is a power which has traditionally
been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of the
7
power of general supervision over local governments. The power is
administrative in nature.
Santiago v. COMELEC (1997)
F: Petitioners assail order of the COMELEC issued under RA 6735
which provided for the rules and regulations for the exercise of the
peoples initiative to amend the Constitution.
H: The order is invalid as the law is not complete in itself and does
not have sufficient standards. The principle of non-delegation of
legislative power should apply as this situation is not one of the
recognized exemptions to such principle.
Nature and Organization of Agencies
Nature and Organization of Agencies
Administrative agencies, how created:
(1) By the Constitution (A.N.: Please refer to your copies of the
Constitution, will not put the text of the provisions here anymore.)
These agencies are truly independent, insulated from the three
branches of government and perform sensitive functions.
Article IX provides for the following Constitutional Commissions
(1) Civil Service Commission (2) Commission on Elections (3)
Commission on Audit
The Constitution likewise provides for the following:
Senate Electoral Tribunal or SET (Art. VI, Sec. 17)
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal or HRET (Art. VI,
Sec. 17)
Commission on Appointments (Art. Vi, Sec. 18)
Judicial Bar Council or JBC (Art. VIII, Sec. 8)
Office of the Ombudsman (Art. XI, Sec 5)
 Economic and Planning Agency (Art. XII, Sec. 9)
Agency on Cooperatives (Art. XII, Sec. 15)
Central Monetary Authority (Art. XII, Sec. 20)
Commission on Human Rights (Art. XIII, Sec. 17)
National Language Commission (Art. XIV, Sec. 9)
National Police Commission (Art. XVI, Sec. 6)
Consultative Body on Indigenous Cultural Communities (Art.
XVI, Sec. 12)
(2) By enactments of Congress
The Congress can enact laws which create agencies. Examples
of agencies created by legislative enactments are: Professional
Regulations Committee, Insurance Commission, Social Security
System, Board of Energy
(3) By Autonomous Regions Enactments
Pursuant to At. X, Sec. 18, the Congress passed RA 6734 which
created the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The
legislative assembly of this autonomous region may also create
administrative agencies.
(A.N. Not to be mistaken with administrative regions like Region
I, II, CAR, etc. which are mere groupings for administrative
purposes.)
(4) Creation by local government action
The local government units may also create administrative
agencies or bodies within the limits of their authority. (e.g.
Traffic and Parking Management Office in some cities)
Reorganization and Abolition
An administrative agency created by law may be reorganized
pursuant to its enabling law or another law authorizing the
reorganization so long as the reorganization would not involve
an abolition or transfer of offices and is carried out in good faith
by the person authorized to effect reorganization (usually the
president).
Constitutionally created bodies can only be altered or abolished
by a Constitutional amendment.
8
The power to create an office carries with it power to abolish.
Legislative intent controls whether a law seeks to abolish and
agency.
The power of the President to reorganize the national
government may be delegated to his cabinet members
exercising control over executive departments.
Effects of dissolution of administrative agencies
When the statutory term of non-incorporated agencies expires, the
powers, duties, functions, assets, and liabilities of the agencies revert
back and are re-assumed by the Republic, absent provisions specifying
other dispositions.
Types, Powers and Functions of Administrative Age
Types of Agencies
(A.N.: According to the syllabus)
(1) Executive
(2) Judicial
(3) Legislative
Common types of administrative agencies according to purpose
(agencies may fall under more than one type) (De Leon)
(1) Those created to function wherein the government is offering
some grant, gratuity or special privilege (e.g. SSS, PAO, Phil.
Veterans Administration)
(2) Those set up to carry out certain functions of government
(e.g. BIR, BI, LRA)
(3) Those set out to perform some business service for the public
(e.g. MWSS, NHA)
(4) Those set up to regulate business affected with public interest
(e.g. LFTRB, NTC, HLURB)
(5) Those set up to regulate private businesses and individuals
under police power (e.g. SEC, MTRCB)
(6) Those set up to adjust individual controversies because of
some strong social policy involved. (SEC, NLRC)

Powers and functions (meaning; distinction)
Function is that which one is bound or which is ones business to do
Power means by which a function is fulfilled
Source
The powers and functions of administrative agencies are defined in
the constitutional provisions or the legislative enactments.
Scope and Extent
(1) Express and implied The powers of administrative agencies
are limited to those conferred expressly or by necessary or
fair implication
(2) No inherent power An administrative power has no inherent
power although sometimes implied powers are called
inherent. (i.e. No contempt power if there is no provision in
the enabling law granting it.)
(3) Quasi-judicial official powers cannot be merely assumed by
administrative officers. Quasi-judicial powers are only
exercised by expressly empowered agencies and their
jurisdiction is limited to that specifically granted in the law
Freeman, Inc. v SEC (1994)
F: SEC issued a preliminary injunction in a case involving an action
where the subject assets are no longer owned by corporations.
H: Administrative Agencies like the SEC are tribunals of limited
jurisdiction and as such can exercise only those powers which are
specifically granted to them by their enabling statutes. The doctrine
of non-interference which should be regarded as highly important
in judicial stability and in the administration of justice whereby the
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened,
modified or vacated by any court or tribunal of concurrent
jurisdiction.
Antipolo Realty Corp. v. NHA (1987)
9
F: SC upheld the jurisdiction of NHA to settle contract disputes
involving subdivisions.
H: Many administrative agencies exercise and perform adjudicatory
powers and functions, though to a limited extent only. This is
because of the need for special competence and experience is
essential in the resolution of questions of complex or specialized
character, and the fact that the dockets of the regular courts have
remained crowded and clogged.
In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which
an administrative agency may exercise is defined in its the enabling
act. In other words, the extent to which an administrative entity
may exercise such powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the
provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency.
Presumption of Regularity of Performance
Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. The
following presumptions are satisfactory if contradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (m) that official duty
has been regularly performed;
Strong evidence
Tatad v. Garcia (1995)
F: Validity of contracts entered into by DOTC (without presidential
approval and thru negotiation instead of public bidding) is being
assailed
H: Government officials are presumed to perform their functions
with regularity and strong evidence is necessary to rebut this
presumption. Petitioners have not presented evidence on the
reasonable rentals to be paid by the parties to each other.

Absence of malice or gross negligence
Sanders v. Veridiano (1988)
F: The petitioners were reinstated despite the claim of another
officer that the petitioners were difficult employees.
H: Even mistakes concededly committed by such public officers are
not actionable as long as it is not shown that they were motivated
by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith.
Absolutely no evidence
Beautifont v. CA (1988(
F: A company questions the validity of BOIs approval of an
investment for missing one requirement in the notice.
H: Courts will not interfere with purely administrative matters
unless there be a clear showing of arbitrary action or palpable and
serious error. The consequent policy and practice is that courts of
justice should respect the findings of fact of said administrative
agencies, unless there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof
or such evidence is clearly, manifestly and patently insubstantial
Classification of Powers
Investigatory Power
Generally
Investigatory or inquisitorial powers include the power to inspect
records and premises, to investigate persons or entities under its
jurisdiction, to secure or require disclosures or information by means
of records, accounts, reports, testimony of witnesses, and production
of documents. They are conferred practically to all administrative
agencies.
RAC, Book III, Sec. 64 (c) To order, when in his opinion the good of the
10
public services requires, an investigation of any action or the conduct
of any person in the Government service, and in connection therewith
to designate the official, committee, or person by whom such
investigation shall be conducted. (A.N. Referring to the President)
Section 20. Residual Powers. - Unless Congress provides otherwise, the
President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the
President which are provided for under the laws and which are not
specifically enumerated above, or which are not delegated by the
President in accordance with law.
Power as a main function Some administrative agencies act merely
as investigatory or advisory bodies they exist solely to secure and
provide information, and in some instances, make recommendations.
As an incident to main functions Agencies use their investigative
powers to inform themselves of particular situations to determine
whether they should take further actions.
Scope and extent of powers
Investigative powers must be exercised within the limits prescribed
and bear reasonable and legitimate relationship to general powers
granted.
An administrative agency may initiate an investigation upon a
complaint or on its motion
They may be held in private.
They may include power of inspection and examination
Administrative powers may be granted powers to require the
attendance of witnesses and to require production of
documents. This power is not inherent. So too, they may be
ranted powers to punish a person for contempt for not
attending/producing documents as required.
Technical rules of evidence and procedure are usually not
applied strictly.
Carino v. CHR (1991)
F: The secretary of education filed a petition for certiorari
challenging the order of the CHR for him to show cause and submit
documents relating to the mass strike of teachers.
H: The Constitution empowers the CHR only to investigate (i.e.
receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards human rights
violations) and not to adjudicate. "Investigate," commonly
understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe
into, research on, study. To investigate is not to adjudicate or
adjudge. The Commission, having only the power to investigate,
cannot and should not judge on the merits.
Evangelista v. Jarencio (1975)
F: PARGO issued a subpoena compelling Manalastas to appear and
provide documents relative to its investigation. Manalastas
challenged the Order saying that the agency has no power to issue
subpoenas
H: It has been essayed that the life-blood of the administrative
process is the flow of fact, the gathering, the organizing and the
analysis of evidence. An administrative agency may beauthorized
to make investigations, not only in proceedings of a legislative or
judicial nature, but also in proceedings whose sole purpose is to
obtain information upon which future action of a legislative or
judicial nature may be taken and may require the attendance of
witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature. In sum, it
may be stated that a subpoena meets the requirements for
enforcement if the inquiry is (1) within the authority of the agency;
(2) the demand is not too indefinite; and (3) the information is
reasonably relevant.
Larin v. Executive Secretary (1997)
F: Larin was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan for grave
misconduct. An administrative case was filed against him. His prior
conviction was overturned.
H: What precipitated the creation of the investigative committee to
look into the administrative charge against petitioner is his
conviction by the Sandiganbayan. However, the conviction of
11
petitioner by the Sandiganbayan was set aside by the SC. The
resolution said that there is nothing "illegal with the acts committed
by the petitioners. It was also declared that "there is no showing that
petitioner(s) had acted irregularly, or performed acts outside of his
(their) official functions. These are the same acts used as the basis
for the administrative charge, therefore the latter should be
dismissed.
Pantrangco v. Board of Transportation (1990)
F: Pantrangco questions decision of BoT ruling that Pantrangcos
competitors inability to operate is not willfull and that there was a
need for its services as they relied on various sources of
information.
H: B O T is particularly a fact-finding body whose decisions are
influenced not only by the facts as disclosed by the evidence in the
case before it but also by the reports of its field agents and
inspectors submitted to it. Likewise, the BOT has the power to take
into consideration the result of its own observation and
investigation of the matter submitted to it for decision, in
connection with other evidence presented at the hearing of a case.
Hearing requirements (A.N.: see section on Administrative due
process)
Contempt Powers invariably limited to making effective the power
to elicit testimony
Negros Oriental Cooperative v. SL of Dumaguete (1987)
F: Masagcay and others questioned the authority of the COMELEC
to charge them with contempt for opening ballot boxes without the
presence of some people.
H: The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts its
existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial
proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and
mandates of courts, and, consequently, in the administration of
justice. Its exercise by administrative bodies has been invariably
 limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony. While
COMELEC has jurisdiction over all election-related cases and has
the power to try and decide certain cases, the agency was merely
exercising its ministerial functions and thus could not exercise the
power to punish for contempt as the same is inherently judicial in
nature.
Masangcay v. COMELEC (1962)
F: Ad Hoc Committee of SL of Dumaguete issued subpoena t require
attendance and testimony of members of the NOC
H: The contempt power of the legislature is sui generis, and local
legislative bodies cannot correctly claim to possess it for the same
reasons that the national legislature does (i.e., self preservation).
The contempt power and the subpoena power cannot be deemed
implied in the delegation of certain legislative functions to local
legislative bodies. Neither can they exist as mere incidents of the
performance of legislative functions.
Right to counsel in administrative investigations
Lumiqued v. Exevea (1997)
F: Lumiqued actively participated in the proceedings of
administrative charges filed against him.. His heirs questioned the
orders dismissing him as he was always unassisted by counsel
during the committee hearings.
H: The assistance of counsel is not an indispensable requirement in
administrative cases. . In an administrative proceeding such as the
one that transpired below, a respondent (such as Lumiqued) has
the option of engaging the services of counsel or not.
Quasi-legislative/Rule-making/Subordinate Legislation
Nature of the power what is granted to the administrative agencies
are rule-making powers to implement the law it is entrusted to
enforce. It necessarily includes the power to repeal, alter, amend and
12
revise its rules and regulations. Prior issuances inconsistent with new
ones are declared repealed and modified/
Necessity Vesting administrative agencies with this power is
necessary because of the impracticability of lawmakers providing
general regulations for various and varying details of management. It
is done in order to adapt to the increasing complexity of modern life
and variety of public functions.
Conditions for validity of delegation
(1) Complete in itself sets forth the policy
(2) Fixes a standard maps out the boundaries of the agents
authority
Ultra vires act
Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA (1988)
F: Petitioner company questions the validity of a Memo Circular
issued by POEA saying that it violates the principle of non-
delegation of legislative power
H: There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there
is a valid delegation of legislative power, viz, the completeness test
and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must
be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he
will have to do is enforce it. Under the sufficient standard test,
there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map
out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot. That standard is discoverable in the
executive order itself mandated POEA to protect the rights of
overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment
practices.
Hillado v. Collector (1954)
F: Hilado is asked to reimburse taxes which he did not pay after tax
deductibles from damages from wars was held invalid.
H: The Secretary of Finance is vested with authority to revoke,
repeal or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of his predecessor in
 office because the construction of a statute by those administering
it is not binding on their successors if thereafter the latter become
satisfied that a different construction should be given. Moreover
circulars which were issued in the wrong construction of law cannot
give rise to a vested right a vested right cannot spring from a wrong
interpretation.
Peralta v. Civil Service Commission (1992)
F: Peralta questioned the memorandum of the CSC saying that
employees who have no more leave credits are not entitled to
payment for the weekends and holidays. (The CSC changed this
interpretation but the court decided on the interpretation of law
nonetheless).
H: When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion
or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a preexisting
law; and the administrative interpretation of the law is at best
advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law
means. It has also been held that interpretative regulations need
not be published. Administrative construction is not necessarily
binding upon the courts. Action of an administrative agency may be
disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error
of law, or, abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a
legislative enactment
Limitations
(1) Constitutional
(2) Legal
A public administrative body may only make rules which are within
limits of its granted powers. It may not make rules and regulations
inconsistent with the Constitution or statues. It may not amend, alter,
modify, enlarge, expand, restrict or limit the provisions of its granting
statute. It should be uniform in operation, reasonable, and not unfair
or discriminatory.
Olsen v. Aldanese (1922)
13
F: Companies who were denied licenses assailed the administrative
order requiring that tobacco cigars should only be sourced in
certain provinces when the law is about the classification, making,
and packing of tobacco and securing that they were sourced from
the same place.
H: It is only for such defined purposes that he is authorized to make
any rules or regulations. Hence, it must follow that any rules or
regulations which are not within the scope of the Act are null and
void. the "rules and regulations" promulgated should be confined
to, and limited by, the power conferred by the legislative act.
China Banking Corp. v. Board of Trustees (1999)
F: HMDF issued Guidelines which required companies to have BOTH
a retirement plan and a housing plan superior to the HMDF plan to
be granted the waiver when the enabling law only required a
retirement/ plan AND/OR a housing plan.
H: It is well settled that the rules and regulations which are the
product of a delegated power to create new or additional legal
provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the scope
of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the
Administrative agency. "Department zeal may not be permitted to
outrun the authority conferred by statute."
When violation carries a penal sanction
People v. Que Po Lay (1956)
F: Que Po Lay alleged that Circular with penal sanction was NOT
binding at the time of his alleged violation because the circular was
not yet published in the Official Gazette.
H: As a rule, circulars and regulations which prescribes a penalty for
its violation especially like the Circular in question should be
published before becoming effective, this, 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 specifically informed of said
contents and its penalties.
People v Maceren (1977)
F: Sec. of Agricultural and National Resources issued and AO that
made electro fishing illegal.
H: The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the
power to declare what acts should constitute an offense. It can only
authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the
penalty provided for in the law itself. While an administrative
agency has the right to make ranks and regulations to carry into
effect a law already enacted, that power should not be confused
with the power to enact a criminal statute. An administrative
agency can have only the administrative or policing powers
expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon it.
US v. Panlilio (1914)
F and H: Panlilio was charged for a violation of Act No. 1760. The
Court held that he cannot be found liable for violation of any of the
sections mentioned because those did not carry penal sanctions.
The law nowhere makes it a penal offense to refuse to comply with
the provisions of section 7, nor is the section itself so phrased as to
warrant the conclusion that it was intended to be a penal section.
Marcos v. CA (1997)
F: Marcos charged with 33 counts of violations of a CB which was
repealed but with saving clause about pending actions.
H: Administrative bodies have the authority to issue administrative
regulations which are penal in nature where the law itself makes
the violation of the administrative regulation punishable. The
Central Bank Act defined the offense and its penalty while the
circular merely spelled out the details if the offense.
Publication and Effectivity
BOOK VII, SECS. 3-8 RAC
Section 3. Filing. -
14
(1) Every agency shall file with the University of the
Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule
adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this
Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that
date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against
any party or persons.
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent
functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section
under pain of disciplinary action.
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the
issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection.
Section 4. Effectivity. - In addition to other rule-making requirements
provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above
provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the
rule in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare,
the existence of which must be expressed in a statement
accompanying the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures
to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by
them.
Section 5. Publication and Recording. - The University of the
Philippines Law Center shall:
(1) Publish a quarter bulletin setting forth the text of rules
filed with it during the preceding quarter; and
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published
and remaining in effect, together with a complete index and
appropriate tables.
Section 6. Omission of Some Rules. -
(1) The University of the Philippines Law Center may omit
from the bulletin or the codification any rule if its publication
would be unduly cumbersome, expensive or otherwise
inexpedient, but copies of that rule shall be made available on
application to the agency which adopted it, and the bulletin
 shall contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the
omitted rule and new copies thereof may be obtained.
(2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which,
pursuant to law, is punishable as a crime or subject to a
penalty shall in all cases be published in full text.
Section 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. - The University
of the Philippines Law Center shall furnish one (1) free copy each of
every issue of the bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to
the Office of the President, Congress, all appellate courts and the
National Library. The bulletin and the codified rules shall be made
available free of charge to such public officers or agencies as the
Congress may select, and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover
publication and mailing or distribution costs.
Section 8. Judicial Notice. - The court shall take judicial notice of the
certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or
the codified rules.
Philippine Blooming Mills v. SSS (1966)
F Japanese technicians from Philippine Blooming Mills were
claiming a return of premiums from the SSS. They were denied
because the law was amended. PBM claims that the amendment
was only published after the employment ceased.
H: The date of the publication of laws in the Official Gazette is
material for the purpose of determining their effectivity, only if the
statute themselves do not so provide. The amendment stated that
it shall take effect on the date of its approval by the President,
making the technicians not entitled to return of premiums.
Tanada v. Tuvera
15
F: Writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to
publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of
various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders,
proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and
administrative orders saying that to be valid and enforceable, the
laws must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise
effectively promulgated.
H: The date of the publication of laws in the Official Gazette is
material for the purpose of determining their effectivity, only if the
statute themselves do not so provide. The amendment stated that
it shall take effect on the date of its approval by the President,
making the Article 2 of the Civil Code (Laws shall take effect after
fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided) does not preclude
the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the
law itself provides for the date of its effectivity.
All statutes, including those of local application and private laws,
shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall
begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is
fixed by the legislature.
COVERED BY RULE: Presidential decrees, executive orders,
administrative rules if their purpose is to enforce or implement
existing law, charters of cities, circulars of monetary board if meant
not to merely interpret but fill in the details of the central bank
act.
NEED NOT BE PUBLISHED: Interpretative regulations and those
merely internal in nature, letters of instructions, municipal
ordinances (covered by local governmentt code).
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its
purpose is to inform the public of the content of the law.
 Republic v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. (2008)
F: The DOE informed that Pilipinas Shells contributions were
insufficient, and as a consequence of the underpayment, a
surcharge was imposed. This surcharge is pursuant to MOF Circular
No 1-85. Pilipinas refused to pay alleging that it was ineffective for
failure to file with ONAR.
H: Circular was ineffective because it failed to comply with
publication requirements: publication in OG/newspaper and filing
with Office of Natl Register (ONAR) in UP Law Center.
GMA Network v. MTRCB (2007)
F: MTRCB issued a suspension order against GMA Network for
airing Muro Ami: The Making, based on a Memorandum Circular
which provides for the penalties for exhibiting a program without a
valid permit from MTRCB.
H: The Memorandum Circular is not binding on GMA Network,
since the same has not been filed with the Office of the National
Administrative Register. Administrative issuances which are not
published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be
enforced.
The Board of Trustees of GSIS v. Velasco (2011)
F: Respondents were charged administratively with grave
misconduct and placed under preventive suspension. Due to the
pending case against them, petitioners denied respondents
requests for certain benefits like step increment and Christmas
raffle benefits for all GSIS employees.
H: Resolutions all pertain to internal rules and thus, there was no
need for publication or filing of these resolutions with UP Law
Center; only those of general or of permanent character are to be
filed.
Amendments or repeal of rules and regulations or interpretations;
prospective/retrospective application
16
Notes:
Whether the rules, regulations, or rulings of an administrative agency
can be made to operate retroactively depends on the provisions of the
authorizing statutes (provided the retroactive effect contemplated
does not conflict with restrictions on the legislative power to make
retroactive laws)
While an agency may prescribe that a ruling by it shall operate
prospectively only, if it fails so to provide, its ruling must operate
retroactively as well as prospectively However, an administrative rule
or regulation usually will not be construed to operate retrospectively
where the intention does not unequivocally appear In any case, a new
rule or ruling is not to be retroactively applied if doing so would be
unreasonable and inequitable
An administrative agency ordinarily has the authority to change, alter,
amend, or correct rules and regulations duly promulgated by it.
In order to be valid, a change in regulation must be made in
accordance with statutory procedural requirements (e.g.
notice and hearing, vote necessary to make change)
General practice: administrative rule should not be amended
so as to effect a retroactive change.
Above does not apply, however, when an administrative
regulation that interprets a statute but is out of harmony with
such statute is amended so as to correctly apply the statute,
since it is in fact the first correct application of the law.
Where administrative bodies exercise regulatory or quasi-
legislative power, the doctrine of res judicata is not
applicable. Such rules and regulations, or orders may be
amended, modified, or revoked to conform to the
requirements of the law or the demands of public interest.
Though an administrative agency is not bound by the rule of
res judicata, it is bound to recognize the validity of a rule of
conduct prescribed by it, and not to repeal its own enactment
with retroactive effects.
 For procedural rules, it can be expeditious for administrative
agencies may ignore a certain rule in a particular case and
adopt therein a different procedure than that contemplated
by the agencys rule in.
o Parties may voluntarily waive compliance with
procedural rules
o Disregard for minutiae of procedural niceties will be
tolerated when no prejudice results
o Rules established solely for the agencys sole
convenience may be waived by the agency
o An agency will not be permitted to adopt a special
rule of procedure for the purpose of affecting the
outcome of a particular case, or to wilfully ignore a
rule in a particular case with a conscious desire
towards the same end. In cases, however where the
record clearly establishes that disregard of an
agencys procedural rules could not have prejudiced
any party to the proceeding, such departure from
procedure is not fatal.
Hilado v. CIR (1956) Supra.
A vested right cannot spring from a wrong interpretation.
Though an administrative officer cannot change a law enacted by
Congress, a regulation that is merely an interpretation of the
statute when determined to have been erroneous becomes a
nullity. An erroneous construction of the law by the Collector of
Internal Revenue does not preclude or estop the government.
Art. 2254. No vested or acquired right can arise from acts or
omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the
rights of others. (Article 2254, New Civil Code.)
17
Ollada v. Secretary of Finance (1960)
F: Sec. of Finance issued two regulations as to bookkeeping records
but continued to accept those made in accordance with the first
regulation even after the second was enacted.
H: The resolution that RR V-43 was not intended to have retroactive
effect was fully within the Secretary's powers and authority, and
becomes part of the regulation itself. Not being clearly
unreasonable or arbitrary, the resolution is entitled to recognition
and respect from the Courts. Even granting, ad argumentum, that
the subsequent permission to use the old bookkeeping forms was
incompatible, such incompatibility would not render the
permission illegal or void, since the Secretary may, at any time,
amend or revoke any of the Regulations issued by him so long as it
is in consonance with the statutes.
Fortich v. Corona (1998)
F: Deputy Sec. Cornoa issued a Win-win resolution after a prior
decision was already reached by the DAR Secretary.
H: The Win-Win Resolution could not modify the prior decision of
the DAR Sec., which had already become final and executory. It is
well-established in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders
of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-
judicial authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding
effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res
judicata. 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.
ABS-CBN v. CTA (1981)
 F: From 1965-1968, pursuant to a General Circular, ABSCBN
withheld 30% of one-half of the rentals it was paying to foreign film
distributors. In 1971, the CIR revoked the old circular and issued a
new MC, providing that the tax withheld should be 35% of the gross
income (not just one-half, applying it to ABSCBN). CIR reassessed
and demanded payment of discrepancy.
H: The NIRC expressly provides for the non- retroactivity of rulings,
including circulars of the BIR. The principle of legislative approval of
administrative interpretation by re-enactment is applied here,
whereby the re-enactment of a statute substantially unchanged is
persuasive indication of the adoption by Congress of a prior
executive construction.
Tests Determining Validity of Rules
(1) IF IT EXCEEDS AUTHORITY - Applied in the ff. cases:
a. WHERE POWER IS DELEGATED TO MAKE LEGISLATIVE
RULES within a plainly limited sphere and subject to
defined standards, and where the rule adopted
exceeds this sphere or is contrary to the standards
b. WHERE THERE IS NO DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER, and the rule issued is an administrative
interpretation that goes beyond the sphere of
interpretation and enters into legislation
(2) IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THE GOVERNING STATUTE
a. The conclusion that a rule is invalid as exceeding the
authority conferred on the agency by statute is
sometimes premised on the finding that there is a
conflict between the rule and the provisions of the
statute
b. Where an interpretative rule is in conflict with the
courts interpretation of the statute, the conclusion
18
of invalidity is premised on the agencys
interpretation being in conflict with the statute
(3) IF IT EXTENDS OR MODIFIES THE STATUTE An administrative
agency may not make a rule or regulation that alters, restricts,
or enlarges the terms of a legislative enactment, or adds
additional requirements not contemplated by the legislature
(4) IF IT HAS NO REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PURPOSE OF
THE STATUTE Where the general policy of the rule is not in
direct conflict with the statute nor is a clear extension of the
statutory command, the challenged rule may be set aside as
bearing no reasonable relationship to the purpose of the
governing statute, and as producing a result which is out of
harmony with the statute (hence, unreasonable), if the rule
produces burdensome and inequitable results
(5) IF IT IS ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE OR CONFLICTS WITH
LAW OR CONSTTUTION
a. Must bear relation to the purpose sought to be
accomplished
Lupangco v. CA (1988)
F: PRC issued Resolution No. 105 which prohibited examinees from
attending review classes, receiving handouts, etc. for the 3 days
immediately preceding every board exam day.
H: The Resolution was unconstitutional. It is an axiom in
administrative law that administrative authorities should not act
arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations.
To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly
adapted to secure the end in view. If shown to bear no reasonable
relation to the purposes for which they are authorized to be issued,
then they must be held to be invalid.
Force and effect of implementing rules and regulations
Implementing rules and regulations, if valid, have the force and effect
of law, and are just as binding upon all the parties as if they had been
Fixing of Rates, Wages and Prices
written in the original law itself
Note: IRR valid if duly promulgated or adopted in pursuance of
delegated authority. They receive statutory force upon going into
effect
Hijo Plantation v. Central Bank (1988)
F: A monetary board resolution by the Central Bank was issued to
clarify certain provisions of RA 6125. There was conflict between
the resolution and the RAs provisions.
H: The Board acted beyond its authority under the law and the
Constitution. There is no dispute that in case of discrepancy
between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement
said law, the basic law prevails because said rule or regulation
cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.
Effect of interpretative rules and regulations
Hilado v. Collector of Internal Revenue (1956) Supra.
A regulation that is merely an interpretation of the statute when
determined to have been erroneous becomes a nullity. No vested
right arises from it.
Peralta v. CSC (1992)
F: Erroneous interpretation of CSC rules as to the salary deductions
for weekends.
H: CSCs construction of RA 2625 is not in accordance with the
legislative intent. Administrative construction is not necessarily
binding upon the courts. Action of an administrative agency may be
19
disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error
of law, or, abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a
legislative enactment.
SEC. 9, RAC
Section 9. Public Participation. -
(1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as
practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and
afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their
views prior to the adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid
unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks
before the first hearing thereon.
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be
observed.
Notes:
The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may
either be a legislative or an adjudicative function.
Where the rules and/or rates are meant to apply to all
enterprises of a given kind throughout the country, it is
legislative which does not require prior notice and hearing,
except where the legislature itself requires it
(N.B. Even if it applies to only a few people or companies - e.g. oil
companies - but is meant to apply in the whole country)
Where the rules and/or rates apply exclusively to a particular
party based upon a finding of fact, it is quasi-judicial. Prior
notice and hearing required for validity of rates
(administrative agencies may be empowered by law,
however, to provisionally approve rates of public utilities
without a hearing, when demanded by urgent public need)
o Rates must be non-confiscatory and established in
manner prescribed by legislature
Panay Autobus v. PNR (1933)
F: PNR petitioned the Public Service Commission to be allowed to
change its freight rates in order to compete with trucks and
autobus services, which can change their rates any time. This was
opposed by Cebu Autobus and Panay Autobus, claiming this would
violate principles of public utility regulations and promote
discriminatory rates. The Commission granted PNRs petition.
H: SC overruled this, stating that the Commission was granted power
by the legislative to fix the rates of public services, but not to
delegate that power to the services themselves. The rates of public
services have been approved or fixed by the Public Service
Commissionany change in such rates must be authorized or
approved by the Public Service Commission after they have been
shown to be just and reasonable. The public service may propose
new rates, but it cannot lawfully make those rates effective without
the approval of the Public Service Commission.
KMU Labor Center v. Garcia (1994)
F: KMU assails the validity of LTFRBs Memorandum Circular which
allows bus operators to charge more than the authorized fare
prescribed by the DOTC.
H: This discretion was deemed to be inconsistent with the Public
Service Act which does not allow LTFRB to delegate such an
important task to public bus operators. Given the complexity of the
nature of the function of rate-fixing and its far-reaching effects on
millions of commuters, govt must not relinquish this important
function in favor of those who would benefit and profit from the
industry. The authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial bus
operators to set a fare range is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount
to an undue delegation of legislative authority. Petetas delegate
non delegari protest. A further delegation of power would
20
constitute a negation of the duty in violation of the trust reposed in
the delegate mandated to discharge it directly.
Vigan Electric Co. v. PSC ( 1964)
F: Vigan Electric Co. entered into a contract with PSC. There became
a controversy of alleged illegality for the electric meters used which
led to the audit and examination of books of Vigan Electric Co. It
was found that Vigan Electric had a net operating profit in excess of
the allowable return of 12%, and as such, PSC ordered the
reduction of rates.
H: The reduction of rates should undergo notice and hearing to
avoid violation of due process. Also, sections 16 and 20 (a) of
Commonwealth Act No. 146 explicitly require notice and hearing.
Whether notice and a hearing is proceedings before a public service
commission are necessary depends chiefly (a) upon statutory or
constitutional provisions applicable to such proceedings, which
make notice and hearing, prerequisite to action by the commission,
and (b) upon the nature and object of such proceedings, that is,
whether the proceedings are, on the one hand, legislative and rule-
making in character, or are, on the other hand, determinative and
judicial or quasi-judicial, affecting the rights and property of private
or specific persons. As a general rule, a public utility be afforded
some opportunity to be heard as to the, propriety and
reasonableness of rates fixed for its services by a public service
commission.
Manila International Airport Authority v Airspan (2004)
F: MIAA is a GOCC which owns, operates, and manages NAIA.
Through resolutions, MIAA announced increases in the charges
imposed on its users, lessees, and occupants. The respondents
 requested deferring the implementation of the new charges due to
lack of prior notice and hearing. MIAA denied said request.
H: The increases in charges could not be made without prior notice
and hearing. As an attached agency of DOTC, the MIAA is likewise
governed by the Administrative Code of 1987. The Administrative
Code specifically requires notice and public hearing in the fixing of
rates, particularly, publication in a newspaper of general circulation
for two weeks prior to the first hearing.
Licensing Function
SECS. 17-18, BOOK VII, AC
Section 17. Licensing Procedure. -
(1) When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a
license is required to be preceded by notice and hearing, the
provisions concerning contested cases shall apply insofar as
practicable.
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules
Quasi-Judicial Power
and regulations or when public security, health, or safety
require otherwise, no license may be withdrawn, suspended,
revoked or annulled without notice and hearing.
Section 18. Non-expiration of License. - Where the licensee has made
timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license with
reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license
shall not expire until the application shall have been finally
determined by the agency.
Gonzalo Sy Trading v. Central Bank (1976)
21
F: The petitioners were granted license to import fruits from Japan
based on their petition that the license was necessary in order to
prevent a shortage of fruits during the Christmas season of 1968.
They continued their importations until 1970 arguing that they still
had more than $35k worth of imports allowed under their license.
The Central Bank (CB) had the shipments seized arguing that the
icense granted to the petitioners were limited only to imports of
fruits for the Christmas season of 1968 and not those done after
H: A license or a permit is not a contract between the sovereignty
and the licensee, and is not a property in any constitutional sense,
as to which the constitutional prescription against impairment of
the obligation of contracts may extend. A license is rather in the
nature of a special privilege, of a permission or authority to do what
is within its terms. It is not in any way vested, permanent, or
absolute. (General rule) A license granted by the State is always
revocable. As a necessary consequence of its main power to grant
license or permit, the State or its instrumentalities have the
correlative power to revoke or recall the same.
(Exceptions) And this power to revoke can only be restrained by an
explicit contract upon good consideration to that effect. The
absence of an expiry date in a license does not make it perpetual.
Notwithstanding that absence, the license cannot last beyond the
life of the basic authority under which it was issued.
Notes:
It is otherwise known as the power of adjudication defined as an
agency process for the formulation of a final order.
Not every function wherein the judgment and discretion are exercised
is a judicial function. The test is not the exercise of judicial discretion
but the power and authority to adjudicate upon the right and
obligations of parties.
RAC, Book VII, Chapter 3, Sections 10-15
Section 10. Compromise and Arbitration. - To expedite administrative
proceedings involving conflicting rights or claims and obviate
expensive litigations, every agency shall, in the public interest,
encourage amicable settlement, comprise and arbitration.
Section 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. -
(1) In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice and
hearing. The notice shall be served at least five (5) days before the
date of the hearing and shall state the date, time and place of the
hearing.
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence and
argument on all issues. If not precluded by law, informal
disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation,
agreed settlement or default.
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings.
Section 12. Rules of Evidence. - In a contested case:
(1) The agency may admit and give probative value to evidence
commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct
of their affairs.
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or
excerpts, if the original is not readily available. Upon request, the
parties shall be given opportunity to compare the copy with the
original. If the original is in the official custody of a public officer,
a certified copy thereof may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses
presented against him and to submit rebuttal evidence.
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and of
generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within its
specialized knowledge. The parties shall be notified and afforded
an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed.
Section 13. Subpoena. - In any contested case, the agency shall have
the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production
of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data, upon request
of any party before or during the hearing upon showing of general
22
relevance. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case
of disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional Trial Court within
whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls. The Court may
punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.
Section 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the agency in a
contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based. The agency shall decide
each case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties
shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail
addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to them.
Section 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency shall become
final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof
by the party adversely affected unless within that period an
administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected.
One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the
running of the said period.
Power to issue subpoena; contempt power
General: Section 13, Book VII (see provision above.)
Special Statutory Power:
PD 902-A (REORGANIZATION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION WITH ADDITIONAL POWERS AND PLACING THE SAID
AGENCY UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT) - Vested the SEC with jurisdiction on petitions for
suspension of payments only on corporations, partnerships and
associations; not on individual persons
Notes:
The power to issue subpoena ad testificandum (to compel the
attendance of a witness for the purpose of giving testimony) and
subpoena duces tecum (to produce documents) is not inherent in
administrative agencies. It must be expressly granted in the charter of
the administrative body (as in the Labor Code Art. 22(b) giving the
NLRC this power). This is because the effectiveness of the quasi-judicial
power of the administrative agencies with quasi-judicial power hinges
on its authority to compel the attendance of witnesses.
Contempt of court (Rule 64 of the Rules of Court) applies only to the
courts. The exercise of the power to declare in contempt by
administrative bodies has been invariably limited to making effective
the power to elicit testimony. Quasi-judicial agencies that have the
power to cite persons for indirect contempt of court (expressly
granted by law) can only do so by invoking the aid of the RTC within
whose jurisdiction the case falls. It is not within their jurisdiction and
competence to decide the indirect contempt, the power of contempt
being inherently judicial.
Evangelista v. Jarencio (1975) Supra.
PARGO enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of
fact-finding investigation. For a subpoena to be validly enforced, it
is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized
purpose and that the proposed witness be claimed to have
information that might shed some helpful light. A subpoena meets
the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is (1) within the
authority of the agency; (2) the demand is not too indefinite; and
(3) the information is reasonably relevant.
(A.N.: WNR (Winner si ate!!!) or WIN, I prefer winner )
Within authority of the agency to issue
Not too indefinite
Reasonably relevant information
Guevarra v. COMELEC (1958)
F: Petitoner Published An Article Entitled Ballot Boxed Contract
Hit. Because Of This Article, The Comelec Ordered Petitioner To
Show Cause Why He Shouldnt Be Punished For Contempt Since
The Article Interfered With Their Investigation Regarding The
Awarding Of Contracts (That They Granted) For The Manufacture
Of Ballot Boxes. Petitioner Contended That The Comelec Has No
Jurisdiction To Punish Him For Contempt.
23
H: The Comelec Has The Power And Jurisdiction To Conduct
Contempt Proceedings, But Only In Situations Where It Exercises A
Judicial Function. In This Case, The Comelec May Not Subject
Petitioner To Contempt Proceedings, Because In Proceeding With
The Matter Concerning The Controversy Of The Ballot Box
Contracts, It Was Only Discharging A Ministerial Duty.
Tolentino v. Inciong (1979)
F: The NLRC served subpoenas to a CFI judge and a respondent
requiring them to appear before the NLRC and show cause why
they should not help in contempt for using old society tactics to
prevent a union election.
H: The proper step for an administrative official then is to seek a
dismissal of the case before the court (where the judge sits)
precisely on the ground that the matter did not fall within the
domain of the powers conferred on it. Citing the judge for
contempt is an affront to reason as well as a disregard of well-
settled rules.
Warrants of Arrest, Searches and Seizure
ART. III sec. 2, 87 Constitution
Notes:
The constitution does not distinguish between warrants in criminal
cases and administrative warrants. It is only the judges, and no other,
who may issue arrest and search warrants. (General Rule) But it is
different if the order of arrest is issued to carry out a final finding of a
violation, either by a legislative or executive officer because that
warrant is different from the one mentioned in the Constitution which
requires a finding of probable cause. (Exception)
In deportation proceedings, for example, issuance of warrant of arrest
by the Commissioner Immigration solely for the purpose of
investigation and before a final order of deportation is invalid. It is
valid upon order of the president AFTER due investigation or
commissioner of immigration upon recommendation of the board
following a final order of deportation
Qua Che Gan v. Deportation Board (1963)
F: Qua Chee Gan and alien friends were charged before the
Deportation Board with violation of law requiring license from the
Central bank before buying and remitting foreign money. A warrant
for the arrest of said aliens was issued by the Board.
H: Under the express terms of our Constitution, it is doubtful
whether the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority
other than the judge if the purpose is merely to determine the
existence of a probable cause, leading to an administrative
investigation. The Constitution does not distinguish between
warrants in a criminal case and administrative warrants in
administrative proceedings. One suspected of a violation of an
administrative nature is entitled to the same determination of
probable cause against him by a judge, as one who is suspected of
a crime.
Salazar v. Achacoso (1990)
F: POEA issued Closure and Seizure Order No. 2015 against
Salazar upon a complaint of illegal recruitment and a finding of
no license. Pursuant to the order, POEA staff confiscated personal
properties..
H: Under Article III, Section 2, of the l987 Constitution, it is only
judges, and no other, who may issue warrants of arrest and
search. The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and
undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner of
Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of
deportation, for the purpose of deportation.
Fines and penalties
24
The imposition of a fine is not a fine in the nature of a criminal penalty;
it is meant to impress upon people an agencys existing rules.
Administrative fines may be imposed when: (1) Subject matter is
within the control of the legislature subject to limits by the
Constitution (2) it is not a criminal penalty (3) the law expressly
authorizes its imposition
US v Barrias (1956)
F: Barrias challenged the validity of a Circular, as Act No. 1136,
which authorized the Collector to set rules and regulations,
imposed a different penalty.
H: The power conferred upon the legislature to make laws cannot
be delegated by that department to any other body or authority...
The power to whose judgment, wisdom, and patriotism this high
prerogative has been entrusted cannot relieve itself of the
responsibility by choosing other agencies upon which the power
shall be developed, nor can it substitute the judgment, wisdom, and
patriotism of any other body for those to which alone the people
have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust. Allowing the Collector
to impose a penalty different from that which Congress imposed
would be a violation of the above principles. Hence, Barrias should
be penalized according to the penalty imposed in Act No. 1136
RCPI v Board of Communications (1977)
F: 2 telegraphs sent, breach of contract and a complaint for
damages. (Andres note: You know this.)
H: Board of communications had no jurisdiction over the case. It did
not relate to the management of the facilities and system of
transmission of messages by petitioner in accordance with its
certificate of public convenience. This is a case of breach of
contractual obligation, thus regular courts has jurisdiction.
Perez v. Refillers Association of the Phil. Inc. (2006)
F: Pursuant to BP 33 which penalized illegal trading, hoarding,
overpricing, adulterating and shortelling of LPG products, the DOE
issued a Circular which specifically provided for penalties for certain
 acts and omissions (no price display board, no weighing scale, etc).
H: The Circular satisfies the requirements for an administrative
regulation to have the force of penal law: (1) The violation of the
administrative regulation must be made a crime by the delegating
statute Itself (2) The penalty for such violation must be provided by
the statute itself. The Circular merely lists the various modes by
which those criminal acts may be perpetrated. The Circular merely
lists the various modes by which those criminal acts may be
perpetrated.
LLDA v SM Prime Holdings (2010)
F: LLDA issued Orders requiring SM to pay the fine for its pollutive
wastewater management system.
H: The intendment of the law is to clothe the LLDA not only with
the express powers granted to it, but also those which are implied
or incidental but, nonetheless, are necessary or essential for the full
and proper implementation of its purposes and functions. It would
be impossible for LLDA to perform its duty and achieve its goal if it
has to find another agency to impose penalty on those who violate
the law.
Interest of law and order
Rubi v. Provincial Board (1919)
Enactment of provincial government to confine Mangyans in a
settlement. The Court considered the low level of civilization of the
Mangyanes and that in the interest of law and order, they should
be concentrated on a specific place for their own and as well as the
countrys benefit.
Public interest; simplicity, economy, monetary stability
People v. Osmena (1939)
Law that requires a certificate/license before selling stocks. To
protect the public against "speculative schemes which have no
more basis than so many feet of blue sky" and against the "sale of
stock in fly-by-night concerns, visionary oil wells, distant gold
25
Administrative Procedure
mines, and other like fraudulent exploitations; "public interest" in
this case is a sufficient standard.
Cervantes v. Auditor General (1952)
Law that creates a body which advises the President in its
supervision and control over GOCCs and their employees. The law
lays down a standard and policy that the purpose shall be to meet
the exigencies attendant upon the establishment of the free and
Independent Government of the Philippines and to promote
simplicity, economy and efficiency in their operations.
People v. Joliffe (1959)
Law requiring the declaration of amount of gold in possession/being
transported. One standard was the CBs objective of maintaining
monetary stability in the Philippines.
Justice, equity and substantial merits of the case
Judicial Determination of Standards
International Hardwood v. Pangil Federation (1940)
Questions the power of the CIR to determine the minimum wage in
a labor dispute. According to the enabling law, the court shall act
according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case.
Which the court deemed to besufficient standards by which the
CIR will be guided.
Education; adequate and efficient structure
International Hardwood v. Pangil Federation (1940)
 Law that makes it a duty of the Sec. of Education to inspect schools.
No reason exists for them to assail the validity of the power nor
the exercise of the power by the Secretary of Education. Indeed
"adequate and efficient instruction" should be considered
sufficient, in the same way as "public welfare" "necessary in the
interest of law and order" "public interest" and "justice and equity
and substantial merits of the case" have been held sufficient as
legislative standards justifying delegation of authority to regulate.
RAC Book VII, Sec. 1-26 (Sec. 1-15, please refer to provisions above.)
Section 16. Publication and Compilation of Decisions.(1) Every
agency shall publish and make available for public inspection all
decisions or final orders in the adjudication of contested cases.
(2) It shall be the duty of the records officer of the agency or his
equivalent functionary to prepare a register or compilation of those
decisions or final orders for use by the public.
SECTION 17. Licensing Procedure.(1) When the grant, renewal,
denial or cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice
and hearing, the provisions concerning contested cases shall apply
insofar as practicable.
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and
regulations or when public security, health, or safety require
otherwise, no license may be withdrawn, suspended, revoked or
annulled without notice and hearing.
Section 18. Non-expiration of License.Where the licensee has made
timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license with
reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license
shall not expire until the application shall have been finally
determined by the agency.
26
Section 19. Appeal.Unless otherwise provided by law or executive
order, an appeal from a final decision of the agency may be taken to
the Department head.
Section 20. Perfection of Administrative Appeals.(1) Administrative
appeals under this Chapter shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days
after receipt of a copy of the decision complained of by the party
adversely affected, by filing with the agency which adjudicated the
case a notice of appeal, serving copies thereof upon the prevailing
party and the appellate agency, and paying the required fees.
(2) If a motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall have the
right to perfect his appeal during the remainder of the period for
appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. If the
decision is reversed on reconsideration, the aggrieved party shall have
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution of reversal within
which to perfect his appeal.
(3) The agency shall, upon perfection of the appeal, transmit the
records of the case to the appellate agency.
Section 21. Effect of Appeal.The appeal shall stay the decision
appealed from unless otherwise provided by law, or the appellate
agency directs execution pending appeal, as it may deem just,
considering the nature and circumstances of the case.
Section 22. Action on Appeal.The appellate agency shall review the
records of the proceedings and may, on its own initiative or upon
motion, receive additional evidence.
Section 23. Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency.In any contested
case, the decision of the appellate agency shall become final and
executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt by the parties of a copy
thereof.
Section 24. Hearing Officers.(1) Each agency shall have such number
of qualified and competent members of the base as hearing officers
as may be necessary for the hearing and adjudication of contested
cases.
(2) No hearing officer shall engaged in the performance of prosecuting
functions in any contested case or any factually related case.
Section 25. Judicial Review.(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to
judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws.
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision
may seek judicial review.
(3) The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency,
or its officers, and all indispensable and necessary parties as defined
in the Rules of Court.
(4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with
the agency within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof a
notice of appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition for review of
the order. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and
all parties of record. The petition shall contain a concise statement of
the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review, and
shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from,
together with copies of such material portions of the records as are
referred to therein and other supporting papers. The petition shall be
under oath and shall how, by stating the specific material dates, that
it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter.
(5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the final administrative decision. One (1) motion for
reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is denied, the movant
shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal
reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. If the decision is
reversed on reconsideration, the appellant shall have fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal.
(6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by
statute or, in the absence thereof, in any court of competent
jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of
Court.
27
(7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole.
The findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial
evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by
law.
Section 26. Transmittal of Record.Within fifteen (15) days from the
service of the petition for review, the agency shall transmit to the
court the original or a certified copy of the entire records of the
proceeding under review. The record to be transmitted may be
abridged by agreement of all parties to the proceedings. The court
may require or permit subsequent correction or additions to the
record.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec.1-2, 10-11, Sec. 16
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or 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 the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed.
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason
of poverty.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Notes:
Definition
Adjudication is defined as an agency process for the formulation of a
final order. Adjudicate is commonly or popularly understood as to
adjudge, arbitrate, decide, determine, rule on, settle; to settle finally
the rights and duties of the parties to a court case.
Character of proceedings
(1) Adversary in nature Every proceeding is adversary in
substance if It may result in an order in favor of one person
against another.
(2) Quasi-judicial or judicial in nature it involves taking of
evidence, determination of facts based on the evidence
presented, rendering an order or decision supported by facts
(3) Civil, not criminal, in nature
(4) Not an action at law
Jurisdiction
Definition - the power to hear and decide a case
Necessity Essential to give validity to the determination of
administrative agencies
Source limited to the terms of the statutes imposing them
Conduct or waiver Jurisdiction cannot be agreed upo by the
parties. However, active participation in the proceedings is
tantamount to a recognition of a boys jurisdiction
Rules of Procedure
Liberally construed; may come from the statute creating the agency.
In the absence f such, the administrative agency may adopt any
reasonable method to carry out its functions
RAC, Book IV, Section 7 empowers the agencies to promulgate rules
and regulations necessary to carry out department objectives, policies,
functions, plans, programs, and projects and to promulgate
administrative issuances necessary for the efficient administration of
the offices under the Secretaries.
28
Due Process
Not merely statutory but a constitutional right.
Its essence is the twin basic requirements of notice and
hearing. Applied in administrative proceedings, it means an
opportunity to explain ones side. For as long as the parties
were given fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and
submit evidence before a judgment was made, due process
was observed.
Cardinal primary rights
Administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of
certain basic and fundamental procedure principles such as the due
process requirements.
Ang Tibay v. CIR (1950)
F: Labor dispute regarding dismissal of workers due to alleged lack
of leather
H: SC enumerated cardinal primary rights in administrative
proceedings: right to a hearing, tribunal to consider evidence, duty
to support decision, evidence must be substantial, decision
rendered on evidence presented or at least contained in record
and disclosed to parties, CIR must act on own consideration, CIR
should render decision in such a manner that the parties know the
issues involved and reasons for decision.
CARDINAL PRIMARY RIGHTS
(1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones
cause and submit evidence in support thereof;
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) The decision must have something to support itself;
(4) The evidence must be substantial;
(5) 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;
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy,
and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render
its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can
know the various Issue involved, and the reason for the decision
rendered.
Bachrach Motor v. CIR (1978)
F: Testimony of a witness was stricken off after he failed to attend
the hearing for cross-examination as requested by a party. (SC
says this is proper.)
H: "The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing
witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or
in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial
powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. A
party has a right to cross-examine opposing witnesses even in
proceedings before administrative bodies.
Montemayor v. Budalian (2003)
F: Complaint of accumulating unexplained wealth was lodged
against director of DPWH following his purchase of expensive
property in the States. He submitted numerous pleadings during
the investigation.
H: The Court here held that petitioner was not denied due process
as due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to
explain ones 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. Also, petitioners active participation in every
step of the investigation effectively removed any badge of
procedural deficiency, if there was any, and satisfied the due
process requirement.
29
Autencio v. Manara (2005)
F: Defendant alleges that she waived her right to present her
evidence at a formal hearing and agreed to submit the case for
resolution, only because of the manifestation of Manara and the
hearing officer that she could be held liable only for the lesser
offense of simple negligence.
H: On the formal charge against her, she had received sufficient
information which, in fact, enabled her to prepare her defense and
file an Answer. In administrative cases, a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain ones side suffices to meet the requirements
of due process. A formal or trial-type hearing is not always
necessary.
Medina v. COA (2008)
F/H: The denial of Medina's request for a formal investigation is
not tantamount to a denial of her right to 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.
Ganapo v CSC (2011)
F: Gannapao was charged with Grave Misconduct and
Moonlighting. Claims he was denied due process for (1) no notice
or summons were issued for him to answer (2) no hearing to defend
his side (3) the witnesses were not cross-examined.
H: (1) In the application of the principle of due process, what is
sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the
denial of the opportunity to be heard; he was apprised of charges
and given time to file answer. (2) There was a hearing and he was
given ample time to submit answers. (3) While the right to cross-
examine is a vital element of procedural due process, the right does
not necessarily require an actual cross examination but merely an
opportunity to exercise this right if desired by the party entitled to
it.

Notice and hearing
When required
NDC v. Collector (1963)
F: While proceedings before the Collector of Customs (re: violation
of customs law) are not judicial in character, but merely
administrative; due process should still be observed in
administrative proceedings. Due process is a constitutional right2
not merely statutory. This right epitomizes the principle of justice,
which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial.
Equitable Bank v. NLRC (1997)
F: Sadac, the bank's general counsel, was dismissed without
proper notice and hearing despite his repeated demands for a full
hearing.
H: SC held that failure to comply with due process requirements
taints the dismissal with illegality, but because of strained relations,
he could no longer be reinstated.
Felix Uy v. COA (2000)
F: New governor wants the old governor to be personally liable for
the salaries of the latters illegally dismissed employees (so that the
local governments funds wont be used.)
H: Paredes was never made a party to nor served a notice of the
COA proceedings. Administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial
powers are not strictly bound by technical procedures, but they are
not free to disregard basic due process. Notice to enable the other
party to be heard and to present evidence is not a mere technicality
or a trivial matter in any administrative proceedings it is
indispensable to due process. Paredes should not be held
personally liable for the claims without an opportunity to be heard
and to present evidence.
30
When not required
Suntay v. People (1957)
F: The Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs cancelled the
passport of Suntay after criminal charges of qualified seduction
were filed against him and he went abroad.
H: Hearing would have been proper and necessary if the reason for
the withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear but
doubtful. Due process does not necessarily mean or require a
hearing. When discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it
upon an undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious criminal
charge against the passport holder, hearing maybe dispensed with
by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport.
Bisschop v. Galang (1963)
F: Biscchops petition for extension to stay in the country was
denied and he was thereafter advised to leave the country within
five days, after which deportation proceedings would be started
against him.
H: The administration of immigration laws is the primary and
exclusive responsibility of the Executive branch of the government.
Extension of stay of aliens is purely discretionary on the part of
immigration authorities. This would not violate the due process
because the letter advising de Bisschop to depart in 5 days is a,
mere formality, a preliminary step, and, therefore, far from final,
because, the "requirement to leave before the start of the
deportation proceedings is only an advice to the party that unless
he departs voluntarily, the State will be compelled to take steps for
his expulsion.
Pollution Adjudication Board v CA (1991)
F: Biscchops petition for extension to stay in the country was
denied and he was thereafter advised to leave the country within
five days, after which deportation proceedings would be started
against him.
 H: The administration of immigration laws is the primary and
exclusive responsibility of the Executive branch of the government.
Extension of stay of aliens is purely discretionary on the part of
immigration authorities. This would not violate the due process
because the letter advising de Bisschop to depart in 5 days is a,
mere formality, a preliminary step, and, therefore, far from final,
because, the "requirement to leave before the start of the
deportation proceedings is only an advice to the party that unless
he departs voluntarily, the State will be compelled to take steps for
his expulsion.
Notes:
When required Acts are particular and immediate and will
affect rights and property of persons
Not required Acts are general and prospective
Form and Promulgation of Decision
RAC, Sec. 14 - Decision. - Every decision rendered by the agency in a
contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based. The agency shall decide
each case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties
shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail
addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to them.
Bisschop v. Galang (1963)
F: The Respondent Public Service Commission (PSC) rendered a
decision granting certificates of public convenience to 60 out of 99
applicants. Those who were unsuccessful were not informed in the
decision as to the specific reason why their applications were
denied.
H: The constitutional requirement that decisions shall clearly state
the facts and the law upon which it is based applies only to courts
of record, and not to decisions by the PSC. However, there still
exists the 7 Cardinal Primary Rights for administrative proceedings.
The 7th right in this case was violated, since the PSC did not even
31
bother to refer individually to petitioner and state why his
application is either dismissed or denied.
Realty Exchange v. Sendino (1994)
F: Among other things, the loser in this case assails that the decision
rendered by the HLURB were decided by a division and not en banc.
H: The board may adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its
business for the effective accomplishment of its mandated function.
Out of practicality and necessity, the Board cannot decide as a
whole body as five of the nine were employed part-time/ex-officio.
Department of Health v. Camposano (2005)
F: The Secretary of the DOH simply adopted the results of the
presidents and the PCAGCs findings in dismissing certain
employees charged with grave misconduct.
H: In arriving at a decision, the tribunal must have acted on its own
consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy and must
not have simply accepted the views of a subordinate. The
disciplining authority must make an independent assessment of the
facts and the law. While the investigation of a case may be
delegated, the disciplining authority must nevertheless weigh the
evidence gathered and indicate the applicable law.
Solid Homes v. Laserna (2008)
F: In a land dispute, The Office of the President decision merely
adopted by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law
contained in the appealed decision of the HLURB.
H: The constitutional mandate does not preclude the validity of
memorandum decisions, a specie of succinctly written decisions by
appellate courts, on the grounds of expediency, practicality,
convenience and docket status of our courts.
Conditions for the validity of memorandum decisions:
(1) It cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the
conclusions of law of the lower court only by remote
reference
 (2) It must provide for direct access to the facts and the law
being adopted, which must be contained in a statement
attached to the said decision
(3) Must comply with Const. Art. VIII, Sec. 14
(4) This kind of decision may be resorted to only in cases where
the facts are in the main accepted by both parties and easily
determinable by the judge and there are no doctrinal
complications involved that will require an extended
discussion of the laws involved.
Jurisdiction, a matter of law
Notes:
Administrative bodies are of limited jurisdiction, the limits are
to be found in the enabling statute expressly granting it
judicial power.
Go Tek v. Deportation Board (1977)
F: A deportation case was filed against Go Tek who claimed it was
premature as the criminal case against him was still pending and
that the deportation proceeding was not based on a ground
specified in law ergo, the Commissioner Immigration had no
jurisdiction.
H: Under existing law, the deportation of an undesirable alien may
be effected by (1) an order of the President, after due investigation
(2) by the Commissioner of Immigration upon recommendation of
the Board of Commissioners. The State has the inherent power to
deport undesirable aliens. That power may be exercised by the Chief
Executive "when he deems such action necessary for the peace and
domestic tranquility of the nation. There is no legal provision
defining the power to deport aliens, as the intention of the law is
to grant the Chief Executive full discretion to determine whether an
aliens residence in the country is so undesirable as to affect or
injure the security, welfare or interest of the state.
32
Carino v. CHR (1991) Supra.
The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no
such power (to adjudicate) and that it was not meant by the
fundamental law to be another court or quasi- judicial agency in
this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the
latter. The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the
way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate.
Go v. Ramos (2009)
F: Go and his father were questioning the jurisdiction of the Board
of Commissioners of Immigration saying that it should be enjoined
until the issue of their citizenship was finally decided by the court.
H: Judicial determination is permitted in cases when the courts
themselves believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim
of citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the
belief that the claim is correct. And that no presumption can be indulged
in favor of the claimant of Philippine citizenship, and any doubt regarding
citizenship must be resolved in favor of the state. As Carlos and Jimmy
neither showed conclusive proof of their citizenship nor presented
substantial proof of the same, SC had no choice but to sustain the Board's
jurisdiction over the deportation proceedings.
Guy v. Ignacio (2010)
F: Petitioners were able to obtain a TRO against the deportation
proceedings against it. Jurisdiction of RTC which issued the TRO in
cases involving deportation is challenged.
H: The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction didnt apply in this case,
because of the exception laid down by BOC v. Dela Rosa when
the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his
citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be
recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation
proceedings. Through the identification numbers issued by the BI,
and a showing of the exercise of rights exclusively for Filipinos (i.e.
Philippine passport), petitioners had substantial proof of Filipino
citizenship.
Notes on this case:
General Rule: Before a party may seek intervention of the court, he
should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative
processes. Issues shouldnt be summarily taken from admin
agencies and submitted to a court without first giving the admin
agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due
deliberation:
Exceptions:
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.
(m) In deportation cases, when there is conclusive
presumption of citizenship
CSC v. Alfonso (2009)
F: Alfonso was charged before the CSC. He was then preventively
suspended. He filed a counter-affidavit, motion for
reconsideration and change of venue which were all denied. He
33
filed another motion for reconsideration assailing the jurisdiction
of the CSC, saying that the Board of Regents has exclusive
jurisdiction.
H: Court ruled that the Constitution itself provides that the CSC
has jurisdiction over all government employees, including that of
GOCCs with their own charters. When special laws give jurisdiction
to discipline officers of academes, the CSC is not divested of
jurisdiction; instead, their jurisdiction is concurrent. Also, active
participation = submission to the courts jurisdiction.
Shell Exploration v. Jalos
F: Fishermen filed a case against Shell for damages. They alleged
that the construction of the Malampaya project resulted to
diminished catch and income.
H: Although the complaint in this case sufficiently alleges a cause of
action, the same must be filed with the PAB, which is the
government agency tasked to adjudicate pollution related cases.
Shell is not an agent of the State and may thus be sued before that
body for any damages caused by its operations. The parties may
appeal the PABs decision to the CA. But pending prior
determination by the PAB, courts cannot take cognizance of the
complaint.
Vda. De Herrera v. Bernardo (2011)
VDA. DE HERRERA V. BERNARDO (2011)
F: Heirs of Bernardo filed interference, disturbance, unlawful claim,
harassment and trespassing case against Alfredo. Vda. De Herrera
raised that COSLAP has no jurisdiction to settle and decide the
question of ownership; RTC is the proper body.
H: COSLAP has no jurisdiction; it can only assume jurisdiction if the
matter is one of those enumerated in paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of
Section 3 of EO 561, i.e. if such case is critical and explosive in
nature, taking into account the large number of parties involved,
the presence or emergence of social unrest, or other similar critical
situations requiring immediate action. This is a case of ownership
thus vested in RTC.
It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a
quasijudicial officer or government agency, over the nature and
subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the
material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed
for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is
entitled to any or all such reliefs.
Proceedings Arising from the Same Facts
Galang v. CA (1961)
F: Tee Hook Chun was ordered by the Commissioner of Immigration
(CI) to be deported to Hongkong after trying to enter the country
by using another persons name and identity. CFI ordered his
temporary release upon filing of a bond. CI refused to release Tee
Hook Chun.
H: The alleged conflict between said proceedings is, at best, purely
physical, not legal, in the sense that one does not nullify or set aside
the other. The conflicts affect mainly the time and place at which
certain things will have to be done. For this reason, some will have
to yield to the others, but only in point of priority or order of
execution or performance. But neither will nullify or set aside the
other, or imply a renunciation of the latter.
Tan v. COMELEC (1994)
F: Tan was City Prosecutor of Davao, who was deputized by
COMELEC as Vice Chairman of Board of Canvassers. A complaint
was filed against him for Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, Gross
Incompetence and Acts Inimical to the Service before the
COMELEC. He claimed that he comes under the administrative
disciplinary authority of the DOJ Secretary.
34
H: COMELEC has jurisdiction to inquire into the charges, under the
Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code. COMELEC has power
of supervision and control over all officials required by law to
perform duties relative to conduct of elections. It may
RECOMMEND disciplinary action but it is the executive department
to which employee belongs that has ultimate authority to impose
the disciplinary penalty. The law then does not detract from, but is
congruent with, the general administrative authority of the
department of government concerned over its own personnel. To
this end, it may inquire into charges against them for the proper
exercise of this recommendatory power.
Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman (2000)
F: An administrative case was filed against Ocampo for serious
misconduct and/or fraud or willful breach of trust. He claims that
the dismissal of the criminal case against him arising from the same
facts should lead to the dismissal of the administrative case.
H: Due to the difference between the quantum of evidence,
procedure, and sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative
proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not
necessarily be binding on the other.
Notes:
Administrative and Criminal proceedings have different (1)
Quantum of evidence required (2) Proceedings/Procedures
and (3) Sanctions
Mirales v. Go (2001)
F: Miralles also contended that the RTCs dismissal of the criminal
case against him for homicide was conclusive of his innocence and
should result in the same findings in the administrative case against
him.
H: An administrative proceeding is different from a criminal case
and may proceed independently thereof. Indeed, the quantum of
proof in the latter is different, such that the verdict in one need not
necessarily be the same as in the other
Ferrer v. Sandiganbayan (2008)
F: Petitioner claims that the dismissal by the Ombudsman of the
administrative case against them based on the same subject matter
should operate to dismiss the criminal case because the quantum
of proof in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt, while
that in administrative cases is only substantial evidence.
H: The basis of administrative liability differs from criminal liability.
The purpose of administrative proceedings is mainly to protect the
public service, based on the time-honored principle that a public
office is a public trust. On the other hand, the purpose of the criminal
prosecution is the punishment of crime. To sustain petitioner's
arguments will be to require the Sandiganbayan and the
Ombudsman to merely adopt the results of administrative
investigations which would not only diminish the powers and duties
of these constitutional offices, but also violate the independent
nature of criminal and administrative cases against public officials.
Azucar v. Jarolan (2010)
F: Jorolan filed an administrative case before the Peoples Law
Enforcement Board against SPO1 Acuzar for grave misconduct for
allegedly having an illicit relationship with Jorolans daughter.
Jorolan also instituted a criminal case against Acuzar for violation
of the Child Abuse Act. Acuzar filed a motion to suspend the. Acuzar
claims that, although the charge was captioned as grave
misconduct, it was actually for violation of law, which under the
PLEB rules of procedure, required prior conviction.
H: The affidavit-complaint shows that petitioner was charged with
grave misconduct. Misconduct generally means wrongful,
35
improper or unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose. It usually refers to transgression
of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion
is left except what necessity may demand; it does not necessarily
imply corruption or criminal intention but implies wrongful
intention and not to mere error of judgment. On the other hand,
violation of law presupposes final conviction in court of any crime
or offense penalized under the Revised Penal Code or any special
law or ordinance. The PLEB, being the administrative disciplinary
body tasked to hear complaints against erring members of the PNP,
has jurisdiction over the case.
Rules of Evidence
BOOK VII, CHAPTER 3, SEC. 12, AC
Section 12. Rules of Evidence. - In a contested case:
(1) The agency may admit and give probative value to
evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in
the conduct of their affairs.
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of
copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily available. Upon
request, the parties shall be given opportunity to compare the
copy with the original. If the original is in the official custody
of a public officer, a certified copy thereof may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses
presented against him and to submit rebuttal evidence.
( 4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts
and of generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within
its specialized knowledge. The parties shall be notified and
afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed
Phil. Movies Premier v. Premier Production (1953)
F: On the strength of the evidence adduced during the ocular
inspection, Judge Roldan issued orders granting Respondents
request to layoff several of its employees.
H: Required due process in this case was not followed and although
CIR may adopt its own rules of procedure and is not bound by any
technical rules of evidence, this broad grant of power should not be
interpreted to mean that it can disregard fundamental
requirements of due process in trials and investigations. One of the
cardinal primary rights the CIR must respect is the right to a hearing
which includes the right of a party interested to present his own
case and submit evidence in support thereof.
Borja v. Moreno (1964)
F: An administrative complaint was filed against him and a number
of other landowners with the DPWH for the abatement of
nuisance and demolition of illegally constructed dams, dikes or any
other works in the public navigable rivers in Macabebe. On mere
oral notice, Yonzon conducted an ocular inspection of Borjas
premises and even proceeded to hear testimonies of witnesses.
Next hearing, Borjas counsel was asked to cross-examine even
without transcription from previous hearing but eventually
Yonzon, changed his mind. The counsel was also not allowed to
testify to identify documents submitted.
H: There is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of
respondent Secretary that the Matlaue stream is a public
navigable river, however, the Court does not feel justified in
affirming the aforesaid conclusion, as the investigation where the
evidence was received was conducted with manifest disregard of
the requirements of due process. The court also held that this is
one of the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of
administrative remedies before resort to the courts may be had.
36
Bantolino v. Coca-cola Bottlers (2003)
F: 62 employees of Coca-Cola filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice through illegal dismissal, violation of security of tenure
One of Coca-Colas arguments is that the affidavits of some of the
complainants, should not have been given probative value for their
failure to affirm the contents thereof and to undergo cross-
examination.
H: The argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the affiants
were not presented for cross-examination is not persuasive
because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in
proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where
decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only." A
criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different
from that of an administrative proceeding. Under the Rules of the
Commission, the Labor Arbiter is given the discretion to determine
the necessity of a formal trial or hearing. Hence, trial-type hearings
are not even required as the cases may be decided based on
verified position papers, with supporting documents and their
affidavits.
CSC v. Colangco
F: Colanggo, a board exam passer, had a complaint filed against
him in the CSC because of discrepancies of his picture in the PBET
application and the seat plan and the signatures in the PBET
application, seat plan and PDS. CSC found him guilty. Colanggo
questioned this because of the documents presented were
unauthenticated photocopies.
H: SC upheld CSC and ruled that the latter is not bound by technical
rules of procedure and evidence applicable in judicial proceedings.
Administrative rules of procedure are construed liberally to
promote their objective and to assist parties in obtaining just,
speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims
and defenses.

37