Administrative Law

by AO Rodolfo M. Elman, CESO lll

Ateneo de Davao Law School

Definition(s)
branch of public law w/c fixes the organization of
government, determines the competence of admin.
authorities who execute the law & indicates to
individual the remedies for violation of his rights.
system of legal principles w/c settles the conflicting
claims of the executive & admin. authorities on one
hand and of the individual or private right on the
other.
deals w/ powers & procedures of admin. agencies,
including judicial review...

 Scope of administrative law: all portions of public law

concerning executive and administrative officials.
Purpose of administrative law: the protection of
private rights. Its subject matter is the nature & mode
of exercise of admin. power and the system of relief
vs. administrative action.
Function of administrative law: to make the
government machinery work well & in an orderly
manner.
Origin of administrative law.

 Distinguish administrative body from court.

Test to determine whether a body is administrative or
judicial: admin. where its functions are regulatory even if it
hears & determines a controversy xxx; judicial if its
primary duty is to decide legal rights xxx
Types of administrative bodies: (BQ)
~those offering some gratuity or privilege
~those seeking to carry on certain business of government
~those seeking to regulate business xxx
~to adjust individual controversies xxx

 Republic of the Philippines (or GRP) refers to

the corporate governmental entity thru w/c the
functions of government are exercised
throughout the PH, including the various arms
while National Government refers to the entire
machinery of the central government, composed
of the executive, legislative & judicial
departments as distinguished from the different
forms of local governments.

 Is Central Bank part of National Government?

(CB vs. Ablaza, 63 SCRA 431). Central Bank
is a government instrumentality created as an
autonomous body under RA 265 to administer
the monetary and banking system.
Is the National Coconut Co. within the term
GRP? (Bacani vs. NACOCO, 100 Phil 468).
Are GOCCs embraced in the term GRP?

Instrumentality as defined in EO 292

any agency of the National Gov't not integrated w/in the
department framework, vested with special functions or
jurisdiction by law & enjoying operational autonomy,
usually thru a charter.
Status of the Manila International Airport Authority: not a
GOCC but an instrumentality of the National Gov't vested
with corporate powers to perform efficiently its
governmental functions. When the law vests in the
instrumentality corporate powers, it does not become a
corporation but remains an instrumentality exercising both
corporate and governmental powers (MIAA vs. CA, 495
SCRA 592).

 Under Sec. 2 of EO 292, the term instrumentality

includes GOCCs. The National Power Corporation is
a GOCC. Thus, NPC is clearly an instrumentality of
the government (Republic vs. Rambuyong, 632
SCRA 66).
NPC is government instrumentality tasked to
undertake development of hydroelectric generation of
power & production of electricity from other sources
xxx to improve quality of life of people pursuant to the
State policy in Art. ll Sec. 9 Const. (Maceda vs.
Macaraig, 197 SCRA 771).

 Status of Iron and Steel Authority - It was

created under PD 272 for a term of 5 years
but extended for another 10 years under EO
555 xxx; a non-incorporated agency or
instrumentality of the GRP. When its statutory
term expires, the powers, duties & functions
as well as assets & liabilities of that agency
revert back to and are reassumed by the GRP
(ISA vs. CA, 249 SCRA 539).

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

courts cannot & will not determine a controversy
involving a question w/in the jurisdiction of an
admin tribunal, especially where the question
demands the exercise of sound admin discretion
requiring special knowledge
it applies whenever enforcement of a claim
requires resolution of an issue within the special
competence of administrative body
2 reasons for the doctrine

 DENR is responsible for enforcement of forestry laws;

forest products in custodia legis cannot be subject of
replevin before the court vs. DENR. Respondents
taking cognizance of replevin suit constitutes ignorance
of law (Sagip Kalikasan vs. Paderanga, 06/19/08). The
enforcement of forestry law & protection & management
of forest lands are w/in DENRs jurisdiction.
Authority of Bureau of Immigration to decide
deportation case & in the process determine citizenship
issue raised by the deportee. Judicial intervention is
enjoined (Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, 598 SCRA 268).

 What is the exception to the primary jurisdiction of

the Bureau of Immigration over deportation cases
and where judicial intervention is allowed?
*when the court itself believes that there is
substantial evidence supporting the deportees
claim of citizenship; or when the evidence submitted
by the deportee is conclusive of his citizenship.
Note: Citizenship proceedings are sui generis, in
that, unlike other cases, res judicata does not
generally obtain.

 The doctrine applies only whenever it is

the court and the administrative agency
which have concurrent jurisdiction. The
doctrine is inapplicable where there is
concurrence of jurisdiction between two
disciplining authorities over a case (ex.
the CSC & the OMB), the regular
courts not being involved.

Commission on the Settlement of Land

Problems (COSLAP) [EO 561]
Authority of COSLAP to resolve land disputes is
limited only to those involving public lands or
those covered by specific license from the
government, i.e. pasture lease agreements,
timber concessions or reservation grants.
No jurisdiction over Gatdulas complaint vs.
Machado for right of way, the property being
private. Lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by
parties participation (Machado v Gatdula &
COSLAP, 2/16/10)

 Rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where

admin agency exercises quasi-judicial or
adjudicatory functions. Here, RTC has
jurisdiction over Sanchez complaint for
damages vs. UST. He did not violate rule vs.
forum shopping when he sought recourse with
both CHED and RTC. Sec. 8 of RA 7722
(Higher Education Act of 1994) does not contain
any express grant to CHED of quasi-judicial
power (UST vs. Sanchez, 626 SCRA 127).

HLURB (PD 957/PD 1344)

Claims/cases over which the HLURB has exclusive
jurisdiction (Sec.1, PD 1344).
specific performance w/damages for delivery of title (CT
Torres vs. Hibionada, 191 SCRA 268)
reimbursement of expenses incurred by homeowners in
repairing their defective housing units constructed by the
developer (HLC Const. vs. Emily Homes Homeowners, 411
SCRA 504)
HLURB has authority to impose administrative fines under
Sec.38 PD 1344 but not criminal penalties (Chua vs. Ang,
598 SCRA 321).
HLURB is competent to award damages.

HLURB
Action to declare void a mortgage of lot done in
violation of PD 957 and annul a foreclosure sale
(Home Bankers vs. CA, 547 SCRA 167)
Mere allegation of relationship between subd.
owner and lot buyer does not vest automatic
jurisdiction in HLURB. Decisive element is the
nature of the action as enumerated in Sec. 1, PD
1344. [Transfer of townhouse to 3 rd party in
violation of contract to sell, not w/HLURB]
(Cadimas vs. Carrion, 567 SCRA 103)

 HLURB & not SEC has jurisdiction over

complaint vs. respondent under receivership for
specific performance re: basic homeowners
needs (Arranza vs. BF Homes, 333 SCRA 800).
There is no forum shopping where HL Carlos
(contractor) sues before HLURB to enforce
Contract to Purchase & files another suit in court
to collect money re: unpaid billings from
Construction Contract (Marina Properties Corp.
vs. CA, 294 SCRA 273).

Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799)

RA 8799 amended PD 902-A and transferred
jurisdiction of SEC over intra-corporate or
partnership cases to the courts.
A criminal charge for violation of the code is a
specialized dispute that should first be looked
into by the SEC under doctrine of primary
jurisdiction and if it finds probable cause, it
should refer to the DOJ for PI (SEC vs.
Interport Resources Corp., 567 SCRA 365).
SEC investigation interrupts prescriptive period.

Toll Regulatory Board (PD 1112)

Remedy of the interested expressway user
who finds the toll rate adjustments to be
onerous, oppressive and exorbitant is to
file a petition for review of the adjusted toll
rates with TRB. The issue involves
question of facts xxx. TRB decision is
appealable w/in 10 days to the Office of
President.
(Padua vs. Ranada, 390 SCRA 664)

 TRB is w/sufficient power to grant a qualified person or

entity w/ authority to construct, maintain & operate a toll
facility & to issue the corresponding toll operating permit or
Toll Operation Certificate (TOC).
Distinction bet. fixing of initial toll rates and fixing of
periodic/interim or subsequent toll rates: The hearing
required under PD 1894 refers to notice & hearing for the
approval or denial of petitions for toll rate adjustments or
the subsequent toll rates, not to the fixing of initial toll rates
w/c is w/o necessity of hearing unless a challenge on the
initial toll rates fixed ensues that public hearings are
required (Francisco vs. TRB, 633 SCRA 470).

Quasi-Judicial Power
express empowerment by law; merely
incidental and in aid of main function
the action or discretion to investigate facts
and draw conclusions from them as basis for
their official action & to exercise discretion of
a judicial nature.
involves: a) taking and evaluating evidence;
b) determining facts based upon the evidence
presented; and c) rendering an order or
decision supported by the facts proved.

Cases
PCGG is a co-equal body of RTC. RTC
cannot restrain the PCGG (PCGG vs. Judge
Pena, 02/07/89).
The action of the POEA to grant, deny,
suspend, or revoke a license of any private
placement agency is quasi-judicial. POEA, on
its own initiative, may conduct the necessary
proceeding for suspension or cancellation of
license of any private placement agency on
any of grounds mentioned therein (Sanado vs.
CA, 356 SCRA 546).

 Power of NTC to issue CPCN for installation,

operation & maintenance of communication
facilities & services and determine the area of
operation of applicants for telecommunication
services (Eastern Telecom vs. Intl
Communication Corp., 435 SCRA 55). The grant
by NTC to ICC to operate in areas covered by
petitioner is not a grave abuse of discretion. NTC
took into account ICCs technical & financial
capabilities and policy of healthy competition.

 A PI is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and DOJ

is not a quasi-judicial agency when it reviews
findings of the prosecutor re presence of probable
cause (Balangauan vs. CA, 562 CRA 186).
UP Board is empowered to withdraw conferment
of degree founded on fraud (UP Board of
Regents vs. CA, 313 SCRA 404).
Constitution grants CHR the power to investigate
all forms of human rights violations involving civil
& political rights, but it does not include power to
adjudicate. Fact-finding is not adjudication
(Carino vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483; 2001 BQ).

 No quasi-judicial powers have been vested

in the Phil. Truth Commission (PTC). It
cannot adjudicate rights of persons who
come before it. Quasi-judicial powers involve
the power to hear and determine questions
of facts to w/c the legislative policy is to
apply and to decide in accordance with the
standards set by law in administering the
same law (Biraogo vs. PTC, 637 SCRA 78).

Forum Shopping
It exists when, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion (other than by appeal or
certiorari) in another, or when he institutes
two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause, on the
gamble that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition.

Rule vs. Forum Shopping

applies to quasi-judicial proceedings.
test of violation: a) where the elements of litis
pendenti are present; or b)where final judgment
in one case will amount to res judicata in the
other.
requirement to file certificate of non-forum
shopping, although not jurisdictional, is
mandatory; if not complied, summary dismissal
is warranted.
certification signed by counsel alone is
defective, unless clothed with special authority.

Cases
General rule: certificate must be signed by all plaintiffs in
a case; exception (HLC Const. vs. Emily Homes
Homeowners Assn., 411 SCRA 504)
Appellate court finds merit or compelling reason for noncompliance with the rule (Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471
SCRA 719).
OMB decision dismissing criminal case vs. DPWH RD
Montemayor does not operate as res judicata in PAGC
admin case vs. him for ill-gotten wealth (Montemayor vs.
Bundalian, 405 SCRA 264).
Rule is not applicable to agency not exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial function (Cabarrus vs. Bernas, 279 SCRA
388) or the cases do not raise identical causes of action
(Velasquez vs. Hernandez, 437 SCRA 358)

 In administrative cases involving the concurrent

jurisdiction of two or more disciplining
authorities, the body in which the complaint is
filed first, and which takes cognizance of the
case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of
other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
When complainants first filed the complaint in
OMB, jurisdiction was already vested on the
OMB & could no longer be transferred to the SB
by virtue of a subsequent complaint by the same
complainants (Ombudsman vs. Rodriguez,
625 SCRA 299)

Quasi-Legislative Power
A relaxation of principle of separation
Requirements for validity of rules
If issued in excess of rule making authority, no binding effect
upon the courts; treated as mere administrative
interpretations of the law.
Mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively
invalidate provisions of law, where a reasonable construction
may be given.
Statute authorizing Pres. to suspend operation of law upon
happening of act

Cases
Rev. Memo Circular 7-85 inconsistent with the NIRC
(Phil. Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 302 SCRA 241).
AO 308 providing for adoption of a national
computerized identification reference system (Ople
vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141).
LBC of DBM setting a maximum limit to additional
allowances to be given by LGU to national
government officials (Dadole vs. COA, 393 SCRA
272)

 PRC resolution prohibiting attendance in

accountancy review classes (Lupangco vs.
CA, 160 SCRA 848)
MECS Order phasing out Spanish
(Confederacion National vs. Quisumbing, 26
January 1988)
Board of Examiners for Nursing regulation
for period inspection (Sand vs. Abad Santos
Educational Inst., 18 July 1980)

 Revenue issuance empowering the BIR to

reclassify cigarette brands (British American
Tobacco vs. Camacho, 562 SCRA 519)
HDMF Board Regulations providing both
provident/retirement and housing benefits
vis--vis RA 7742 (Romulo & Mabanta vs.
HDMF, 333 SCRA 777)
Creation of new AFP Anti-Graft Board
through PCGG issuance (Republic vs.
Migrino, 189 SCRA 300)

 Rule-making power of admin body is a delegated

legislative power w/c it may not use either to abridge
the authority given it by Congress or the
Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the
scope intended. The SSS, in promulgating Res. 56
w/c provides a supplementary pension/ retirement
plan in violation of the Teves Retirement Law (Sec.
28 of CA 186 as amended by RA 4968), cannot in
guise of rule-making, legislate or amend laws or
render them nugatory. Res. 56 is void & of no effect
(Conte vs. COA, 264 SCRA 20).

 Note: The Teves Retirement Law (RA

4968) bars the creation of any insurance
or retirement plan other than the GSIS
for government employees to prevent the
undue and inequitous proliferation of such
plans.

 While GSIS has authority to create a financial

scheme, it is limited only to those availing of early
retirement due to reorganization in GSIS but are not
yet qualified for either optional or compulsory
retirement. The Retirement Financial Plan (RFP)
adopted by GSIS Board is void as it is not an early
retirement scheme but is a form of reward for an
employees loyalty and lengthy service in order to
help him enjoy the remaining years of his life. The
RIF is a supplementary retirement plan prohibited by
the Teves Retirement Law (GSIS vs. COA, 10/19/11).

 Mere absence of implementing rules

cannot invalidate law. That Full Disclosure
Rules was promulgated by SEC only on
07/24/96 while Revised Securities Act was
approved on 02/23/82 does not render
ineffective the law where a reasonable
construction may be given(SEC vs.
Interport Corp., 567 SCRA 354).

 EO 420 directing all govt agencies to adopt a

unified multi-purpose ID system does not usurp
legislative power. Two ways to achieve unified ID
system, intended to reduce cost and ensure greater
convenience: 1) Heads of govt entities can enter
into MOA to adopt a uniform ID format. This is
purely admin matter; and 2) President, pursuant to
her power of control, can direct thru exec. or admin
order the govt entities under Exec. Dept to adopt
uniform ID format (KMU vs. Director General, 487
SCRA 623).

 Following the leakage in 2006 nursing exam, Pres.

GMA replaced the members of Board of Nursing
and issued EO 566 w/c authorized the CHED to
supervise the operation of all review centers. Said
EO is invalid and a usurpation of legislative function.
The mandate of CHED under RA 7722 extends only
to public/private institutions of higher learning &
degree-granting
programs
in
post-secondary
educational institutions, but not over review centers.
A review center is not an institution of higher learning
(Review Center vs. Exec. Sec., 583 SCRA 428).

Fiscal Autonomy
entails freedom from outside control ad limitations,
other than those provided by law; recognizes the
power to levy, assess and collect fees, fix
compensation rates not exceeding the highest rates
authorized by law and allocate and disburse such
sums as may be provided by law or prescribe by
them in the discharge of their functions; formulate
and implement their organizational structure and
compensation of their personnel.
It is a constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable by
membership.

Cases
While members of the CFAG are authorized to
formulate & implement organizational structure of their
respective offices & determine the compensation of
their personnel, such authority is not absolute & must
be exercised w/in the parameters of the Unified
Position Classification&Compensation System under
RA 6758 administered by the DBM. Thus, CHR cannot
lawfully implement an upgrading & reclassification of
positions w/o DBM imprimatur. The upgrading/creation
of FMO and PAO in CHR was not authorized by any
law (CHREA vs. CHR, 444 SCRA 300).

 CHR has a certain degree of fiscal

autonomy thru the privilege of having its
approved annual appropriations released
automatically and regularly, but not fiscal
autonomy in its extensive sense like using
their appropriations to effect changes in
their organizational structure & their
savings for certain official purposes
(CHREA vs. CHR, 496 SCRA 227).

 Funds for agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy

should be automatically & regularly released, and
not conditioned on the no report, no release DBM
policy. The withholding of P5.8M for FY 2002 by the
DBM, allegedly due to revenue shortfall, is
unconstitutional (CSC vs. DBM, 22 July 2005).
Even granting there is revenue shortfall, these
agencies should be given priority. The exception is
where total revenue collections are so low that
they are not sufficient to cover the total
appropriations for all entities vested with fiscal
autonomy.

 Re: the SC resolution creating positions of Chief Judicial

Staff Officer (SG 25) & Supervising Judicial Staff Officer
(SG 23), the DBM has no authority to downgrade such
SC positions/salary grades. The DBM authority extends
only to calling the attention of the SC on its perceived
erroneous application of budgetary laws & rules. The
SC may then amend or modify its resolution as its
discretion may dictate under the law. Here, DBM
encroached on SCs fiscal autonomy and supervision of
court personnel, hence, unconstitutional (Re: Clarifying
& Strengthening the Organizational Structure &
Administrative Set-up of the Philippine Judicial
Academy, 481 SCRA 1).

Power to issue subpoena

Admin agencies have no inherent power to
require attendance of witnesses, but they may be
given by law the power to issue subpoena xxx
Sec. 13 & 37, Ch. 3, Bk. Vll, EO 292: admin
bodies are now authorized to require attendance
of witnesses, or production of records xxx.
Authority to take testimony or receive evidence
includes the power to administer oath, summon
witnesses and issue subpoenas.

 administrative subpoena distinguished

from judicial subpoena
A subpoena may be enforced if the inquiry
is within the authority of the agency, the
demand is not too indefinite and the
information is reasonably relevant
(Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99).

Power to punish contempt

It should be clearly defined and granted by law and
its penalty determined.
EO 292 states that unless otherwise provided by
law, the agency may, in case of disobedience,
invoke the aid of RTC to punish contumacy or
refusal as contempt.
It is limited to making effective the power to elicit
testimony and it cannot be exercised in furtherance
of administrative functions; this limitation derives
from its nature being inherently judicial & the need
to preserve order in judicial proceedings.

 RA 6770 gives the Office of the Ombudsman

the power to punish for contempt in
accordance w/ Rules of Court. Petitioners
argument that they cannot be held liable for
contempt because their refusal arose out of an
administrative rather than judicial
proceeding before the OMB is w/o merit.
Whether petitioners refusal to follow the OMB
orders constitutes defiance is for respondent to
determine after appropriate hearing (Lastimosa
vs. Vasquez, 06 April 1995).

Implementing Rules or
Interpretative Policies
Admin bodies have authority to interpret at first
instance the laws they are to execute.
Interpretations are not binding upon courts but
have force/ effect of law and entitled to great
respect.
general policy is to sustain the decision of
administrative bodies on basis of separation of
powers and their presumed knowledgeability and
expertise.
abrogation of previous acts or rulings of
predecessor in office.

Requisites for validity of admin rules and regulations

(Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446)
-must be issued under authority of laws
-must be within the scope & purview of the law
-must be reasonable
-must be published
Art. 2, CC as repealed by EO 200
What need to be published?
*When the issuances are of general applicability,
publication is necessary as a requirement of due
process.

 The SEC violated due process when it denied the

public prior knowledge of SEC 1990 Circular
removing the filing fee ceilings provided for in SEC
1986 Circular. The 1990 SEC Circular was not yet
effective during the time PICOP filed its request in
2002 to extend its corporate existence as the SEC
filed said Circular w/ UP Law Center only in 2004.
The OP and the CA were correct in declaring that
the applicable filing fee payable by PICOP is P100T
as computed under the 1986 Circular, instead of
P12M SEC assessment under the 1990 Circular
(SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 453) .

Cases
EO 79 providing for compulsory membership in
GSIS of qualified reserve AFP officers like Gen.
Asuncion is effective 15 days after its publication in
OG on 12/22/86 (GSIS vs. COA, 301 SCRA 736).
DBM Circular disallowing payment of allowances is
of no force & effect due to absence of publication
in OG or newspaper xxx. That it was reissued &
submitted for publication in OG does not cure the
defect and retroact to the time of disallowance in
audit. Publication is a condition precedent to
effectivity of a law (Phil. International Trading vs.
COA, 309 SCRA 177).

 POEA Circular not filed with the National

Administrative Register cannot be used as basis for
imposition of administrative sanctions and is
ineffective and may not be enforced; a requisite under
Secs. 3 & 4, Bk Vll, EO 292 (Philsa International
Placement Corp. vs. Labor Secretary, 356 SCRA
174). That it is addressed to specific group, i.e.
private employment agencies, does not exclude it
from publication requirement.
Rules imposing a penalty as authorized by the law
itself must be filed & registered w/ UP Law Center
(Secs. 3 & 4, Bk. Vll, EO 292).

 OMB-DOJ Joint Circular 95-01 is merely internal bet. the

DOJ & the OMB, outlining the authority & responsibilities
among prosecutors in conduct of PI. Said circular does not
regulate the conduct of persons or the public in general, nor
does it contain any penal provision or prescribe a mandatory
act. Hence, it need not be published (Honasan vs. DOJ Panel,
4/13/04). Note: superseded by OMB-DOJ MOA dated 3/29/12
What need not be published?
*Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature,
i.e regulating only the personnel of the agency and not the
public.
*LOIs issued by administrative superiors concerning rules to be
followed by subordinates

 The 1978 NTC Rules ought to apply in the

grant of provisional authority to BayanTel
despite filing of 1993 Revised Rules with UP
Law Center. The 1993 NTC RR should have
been published in OG or newspaper of general
circulation before it can take effect. Filing of the
1993 NTC RR w/ U.P. Law Center is not the
operative act that gives the RR force & effect.
The National Admin Register is merely a
bulletin of codified rules (Republic vs.
Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 317).

 RA 3531 authorizes SEC to collect filing fees

for amendments extending corporate
existence. SEC Circular # 1 imposing a filing
fee of 1/10 of 1% of AC plus 20% thereof [or
the amount of P1,212,200.00 on GMA] for
amendments extending corporate existence is
not a mere interpretation or an internal rule. It
needs to be published as it implements
mandate of RA 3531 and it affects public (SEC
vs. GMA Network, 575 SCRA 113).

Requirement of Admin Due Process

1. Impartial tribunal
*Fabella vs. CA, 282 SCRA 256
2. Due notice and hearing or opportunity to be heard
*Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143
*Alcala vs. School Principal Villar, 11/18/03
*Laxina vs. OMB, 471 SCRA 544
3. Procedure consistent w/essentials of fair trial
4. Proceedings should be conducted to give
opportunity for court to determine whether
applicable rule of law & procedure were observed.

 Note: The OMB Act (RA 6770) recognizes the

existence of some proper disciplinary authorities
such as the Investigating Committee of the DepEd
under RA 4670. Thus, Sec. 23 of RA 6770 directs
that the OMB may refer certain complaints to the
proper disciplinary authority for the institution of
appropriate admin proceedings vs. erring public
officers. Thus, the administrative disciplinary
authority of the OMB over a public school teacher is
not exclusive but concurrent (OMB vs. Medrano,
569 SCRA 749).

 While OMB has concurrent administrative

disciplinary authority with the DECS over public
school teachers, Sec. 23 of RA 6770 provides that
the OMB may refer a complaint to the proper
disciplinary authority. Under the circumstances
obtaining herein, it is more prudent for petitioner to
have referred the complaint to the DECS as it is in
a better position to serve the interest of justice.
Respondent is a public school teacher and covered
by RA 4670 (OMB vs. Delijero, Oct. 10, 2010).

 Note: RA 4670 does not confer exclusive

jurisdiction to DepEd nor prescribe an
exclusive procedure in administrative
investigation involving public school teachers.
The 1987 Constitution cannot be restricted by
RA 46780 which is of earlier enactment. Sec. 9
of RA 4670 refers only to specific procedure
to be followed by DepEd in administrative
investigation (OMB vs. Masing, 542 SCRA
253).

p.18

Approval in a TRB resolution of provisional toll rates of

public utilities without hearing and by TRB Directors
who did not attend personally the hearing (Padua vs.
Ranada, 390 SCRA 666)
Exercise of disciplining authoritys prerogative requires
prior independent consideration of law and facts, & not
simply rely on dispositive portion of PCAGC Reso. Her
finding should contain factual finding & legal
assessment (DOH Secretary vs. Camposano, 457
SCRA 440)
Decision prepared by a SP Member (Malinao vs.
Reyes, 255 SCRA 616)

Due Process in Admin Proceedings

What it includes: 1) right to actual or constructive
notice to the institution of proceedings; 2) real
opportunity to be heard personally or with
counsel, to present evidence; 3) impartial
tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction; and
4) finding by said tribunal w/c is supported by
substantial evidenceknown to parties affected.
A decision rendered in disregard of the
fundamental right to due process is void for lack
of jurisdiction (Garcia vs. Molina, 627 SCRA
541)

Cases on admin due process

CSC as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge

(Cruz vs. CSC, 370 SCRA 650)
GSIS as complainant, prosecutor and judge (Garcia vs.
Molina, 627 SCRA 540)
Motu proprio CSC action to administer and protect integrity
of CS system under Sec. 12 and ordinary proceeding to
discipline a bona fide member of the system under Sec.
47, EO 292 (CSC vs. Albao, 472 SCRA 548)
Reviewing Officer should not be same officer whose
decision is under review (Zambales Mining vs. CA, 94
SCRA 261).

 Labor Arbiter Aquino whose decision is subject of

appeal is the reviewing officer as Commissioner of
NLRC (Singson vs. NLRC, 274 SCRA 358)
OMB committed grave abuse of discretion when he
participated in reinvestigation of graft case vs. PNB
VP Tejano despite his earlier participation in PI as SP
(Tejano vs. Desierto, 462 SCRA 568).
NTC order reviving archived application of BayanTel
w/o notice to oppositor is not denial of procedural due
process (Rep. vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 319).

 Administrative proceedings are not exempt from

fundamental procedural principles, such as right to due
process. Respondent must be duly informed of charge
vs. him & he cannot be convicted of a crime with w/c he
was not charged (CSC vs. Lucas, 301 SCRA 560).
Essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard
or seek a reconsideration of the ruling complained of.
Procedural vs. substantive due process
~method or manner by w/c law is enforced
~ law itself is fair, reasonable & just

 The tenurial protection accorded to a civil servant is

a guaranty of both procedural & substantive due
process. Procedural due process requires that the
dismissal when warranted be effected only after due
notice & hearing. While substantive due process
requires that dismissal be for legal cause (Lacson
vs. PAGC, 05/30/11). Petitioners actively participated
in PAGC proceedings where they explained their
actions thru their memoranda. For failure to appeal
to proper forum (to CSC & not to CA), PEA decision
has become final & executory.

 There is no denial of due process when on her

filing a MR from the decision reprimanding her
was given opportunity to be heard but she
refused to file pleading (Ruivivar vs. Omb., 565
SCRA 325)
Unverified complaint filed w/ CHED is not the
complaint w/in purview of EO 292. It merely
commences FFI. The formal charge of the CHED
Legal Office vs. Gaoiran constituted the complaint
(Gaoiran vs. Alcala & Castillejo, 444 SCRA 420).

 One may be heard not solely by verbal presentation

but also thru pleadings in admin proceedings.
Technical rules of procedure & evidence are not strictly
applied (Concerned MWSS Officials vs. Vasquez, 240
SCRA 502).
Due process in administrative context does not require
trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts (UP
Board of Regents vs. CA, 313 SCRA 404).
Service of summons or order on OSG is indispensable
ingredient of due process (NPC vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA
707).

 Where a party appears by counsel in an action in

court or administrative body, all notices required to
be given must be served to the counsel and not to
the client. Notice to counsel is notice to client
(Lincoln Gerard, Inc. vs. NLRC, 7/23/90).
Notice to any one of the several counsels on record
is notice to all and such notice starts the time
running for appeal despite that the other counsel
on record has not received a copy of the decision
(PPA vs. Sargasso Const., 435 SCRA 512).

 The right to appeal is not

. a natural right nor part
of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege,
exercisable only in the manner & in accordance
with law (Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753).
Assistance of counsel is not an absolute
requirement in administrative inquiry. Here,
petitioner waived her right to assistance of
counsel and freely acknowledged her
wrongdoing (Ampong vs. CSC, 563 SCRA 294).

 A party in an admin inquiry may or may not be assisted by

counsel, regardless of nature of charges & of
respondents capacity to represent himself, and no duty
rests on such body to furnish the person investigated
w/counsel.
Respondent has option of engaging the services of
counsel or not. Right to counsel is not imperative because
admin inquiry is conducted merely to determine whether
the facts merit disciplinary measures vs. erring public
officers, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of the
government service (Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282 SCRA
125).

 Negligence of counsel binds the client (Maquilan vs.

Maquilan, 524 SCRA 166); the only exception is when
negligence of counsel is gross, reckless &
inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in
court (Razon vs. Pp, 525 SCRA 284).
Jurisdiction acquired at time of filing is not lost by
cessation in office of respondent during pendency of
his admin case. The body retains its jurisdiction either
to pronounce him innocent of the charges or declare
him guilty thereof (Perez vs. Abiera, 62 SCRA 302).

Cardinal Primary Rights in

Administrative Proceedings
Right to a hearing;
Tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
Decision must have something to support itself;
Decision is based on substantial evidence;
Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at
hearing, or at least contained in the record & disclosed to the
parties affected;
6. Board/judge must act on its own independent consideration of
law & facts of controversy, & not simply accept views of
subordinate.
7. Decision is rendered such that parties can know various
issues & reasons for decision.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

 Instances of admin determination where

notice and hearing are not necessary.
1.Summary abatement of nuisance per se
2.Cancellation of passport by DFA
3.Summary proceedings of distraint & levy of
property of delinquent taxpayer
4.Preventive suspension
5.Grant of provisional authority for increased
rates, or to engage in particular line of business.

 There is nothing irregular that theTRB

Resolution No. 2001-89 authorizing
provisional toll rate adjustment at Metro
Manila Skyway effective 01/01/02 was
signed by the TRB Exec. Director & four
Directors, none of whom personally
attended the hearing (Padua vs. Ranada,
390 SCRA 679).

Right vs. self-incrimination

Available in all kinds of proceedings
Available only to natural persons and not
to a juridical person.
Reason for exclusion of juridical persons
from no self-incriminatory rule is the need
for administrative bodies tasked by
legislature to see to the compliance with
law and public policy.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
Before a party can be allowed to seek
judicial intervention, he is to exhaust all
means of administrative redress available
under the law.
3 reasons for the doctrine
A direct action in court w/o prior exhaustion
of administrative remedies, when required,
is premature, warranting its dismissal on a
motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause
of action. The failure to observe the doctrine
does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.

Cases
Doctrine is applicable only to acts in the
performance of a quasi-judicial, not rulemaking, function. Where what is assailed is
the validity of IRR issued by the National
Government Center Admin Committee
pursuant to its quasi-legislative power
under RA 9207, on the ground that it is not
germane to the object & purpose of the law,
the regular court has jurisdiction to pass
upon the same (Holy Spirit Homeowners
Assn. vs. Defensor, 497 SCRA 582).

 MR must first be filed under NLRC Rules of

Procedure before special civil action for
certiorari under 65 of Rules of Court may be
availed of (Sunshine Transp. vs. NLRC, 254
SCRA 51).
Action to recover forestry products under
DENR custody shall be directed to that agency
and not the courts thru a complaint for replevin
& damages. Actions of BFD Director are
subject to review by DENR Secretary (Task
Force Sagip Kalikasan vs. Judge Paderanga,
19 June 2008).

Sec. 8, PD 705 as amended

states that 1. All actions and decisions of the Bureau of
Forest Development (now LMB) Director
are subject to review by the DENR
Secretary;
2. The decisions of DENR Secretary are
appealable to the President; and
3. Courts cannot review the decisions of the
DENR Secretary except thru a special civil
action for certiorari or prohibition.

Distinction bet. Doctrine of Primary

Jurisdiction & Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies

Both deal with the proper relationships between

courts and administrative bodies.
Exhaustion applies where the claim is originally
cognizable in the first instance by the
administrative body alone, while primary
jurisdiction applies where the case is within the
concurrent jurisdiction of the court &
administrative agency but the case requires
determination of some technical or factual
matter xxx.

Cases
Increase in water rates by LWD is subject to review
& approval by LWUA. After LWUA reviews the rate
established by a LWD, a water concessionaire may
appeal the same to the NWRB whose decision may
then be appealed to the Office of the President
(Merida Water Dist. vs. Bacarro, 567 SCRA 204)
Third party claim before the court was for recovery
of possession & injunction, but it was in essence an
action questioning the validity of levy in the labor
case, hence, an incident of the labor case. RTC
cannot enjoin the NLRC (Deltaventures Resources
vs. Cabato, 327 SCRA 522).

 OSP is merely a component of OMB and

may only act under the supervision & control
of OMB (Ombudsman vs. Valera, 471 SCRA
717).
The review as an act of supervision &
control by DOJ Secretary over fiscals finds
basis in this doctrine. He may thus affirm,
nullify, reverse or modify their rulings.
RSP has administrative supervision, not
control, over CPs and PPs (RSP Aurillo vs.
Rabi, 392 SCRA 604).

 Protests regarding CARP implementation

are under exclusive jurisdiction of DAR
Secretary. The petition for certiorari by
Polo Coconut before CA asserting that the
PARO gravely abused his discretion in
placing Polo estate under the CARP will
not prosper until all remedies under
DARAB Rules have been exhausted (DAR
vs. PCPI, 564 SCRA 80).

 The complaint of Senior Engr. Ortizo for prohibition

& injunction should have been dismissed. He
should appeal the reassignment order of RM to the
NIA Administrator & if necessary, to CSC (Corsiga
vs. Defensor, 391 SCRA 274).
Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of admin
remedies when it went directly to CA on a petition
for certiorari & prohibition from the NTC Order
without first filing a MR w/in 15 days pursuant to
NTC Rules. That the NTC Order became
immediately executory does not mean foreclosure
of remedy of filing MR (Rep. vs. Extelcom, 373
SCRA 321).

 Under Sec. 4 of Rule 43 of Rules of Court, an

appeal (thru petition for review before CA), shall be
taken w/in 15 days from the date of the denial of
the first and only MR allowed. The filing of the
second MR by SEC before the OP did not the
suspend running of the period to file a petition for
review before the CA, w/c expired 15 days after
petitioner SEC received the OP Resolution denying
the first MR of the SEC and upholding the position
of PICOP (SEC vs. PICOP, 566 SCRA 451).

 Appeal the monetary award of the DOLE Reg. Director

(in exercise of his visitorial & enforcement powers ) to
the Labor Secretary (Laguna CATV vs. Maraan, 392
SCRA 226).
Submission of dispute to Lupon ng Tagapamayapa for
amicable settlement under Sec. 408 LGC (Berba vs.
Pablo, 474 SCRA 686).
TACC should have appealed the LLDA Order, imposing
penalty of P1.062M for its pollutive wastewater
discharge, to the DENR Secretary in view of the transfer
of LLDA to DENR thru the Pollution Adjudication Board
for administrative supervision under EO 149, before filing
a petition for certiorari in the CA (The Alexandra Condo
Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 SCRA 453).

 In Prov. of Siquijor vs. COA (12/04/09), the SC

dismissed petitioners petition for certiorari to nullify
the decision of COA Region Vll as affirmed by
COA Legal Office disallowing the grant of P20T
Xmas bonus, for failure to exhaust admin remedies.
Petitioner having failede to pursue an appeal w/ the
Commission Proper under COA Rules of Procedure,
the disallowance as ruled by COA LAO-Local has
become final & executory. Remedy of certiorari may
be availed of only if there is no appeal xxx

Distinction: Exhaustion of Admin

Remedies & Due Process
Exhaustion principle is based on the
perspective of the ruling tribunal, while due
process is considered from the viewpoint of the
litigating party against whom a ruling was
made.
The commonality they share is in the same
opportunity that underlies both, i.e. opportunity
for the ruling tribunal to re-examine its findings
and opportunity for the party to be heard.

Cases where a prior MR is not

necessary
a. the order is a patent nullity, as where the tribunal
has no jurisdiction;
b. there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of
the question & any further delay would prejudice
the interests of Government or of the petitioner;
c. deprivation of due process & there is urgency for
relief;
d. issue is purely legal;
e. public interest is involved.

Exceptions to the doctrine of

exhaustion of admin remedies
Whether respondents transfer to the position of
Regional Director of PAO, which was made w/o
her consent, amounts to removal without cause is
a legal issue (Demaisip vs. Bacal, 12/06/00).
Whether the memo of ARMM Governor, ordering
the reinstatement of petitioner already declared
AWOL & dropped from the rolls, was issued in
excess of jurisdiction is a legal question (Arimao
vs. Taher, 498 SCRA 75).

 Whether or not the PNP Chief had jurisdiction to

take cognizance of the complaint filed by a private
citizen vs. him is a legal question (Lastimoso vs.
Senior Insp. Asayo, 06 March 2007)
Where the respondent is a department secretary,
whose acts as an alter ego of the President, bear
the implied or assumed approval of the latter
(Quisumbing vs. Gumban, 193 SCRA 523)
Where the doctrine of qualified political agency
applies (Binamira vs. Garucho, 190 SCRA 154)

 Whether or not petitioners dismissal from the

service is the proper penalty for the first offense of
disgraceful & immoral conduct is a question of law
(Castro vs. Gloria & Gutang, 363 SCRA 423)
Where petitioner is not asking for the reversal of
the policies of PCST nor demanding that she be
allowed to take the final exams (Regino vs.
Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology,
443 SCRA 56).
Sabello vs. DECS, 12/26/89

 There is estoppel on the part of the party invoking it.

There is unreasonable delay of official action that
will irreparably prejudice the complainant.
There is no plain, adequate and speedy remedy
except court action.
The land in question is private.
The amount is too small so as to make the rule
impractical.
There is nothing left to be done except court action.

Doctrine of Qualified Political

Agency
In the absence of a constitutional proviso or statute
to the contrary, official acts of a dept secretary are
deemed acts of the President unless
All executive & administrative organizations are
adjuncts of Exec. Dept.
Power of DILG to investigate admin complaints is
based on this doctrine.
Authority of the Executive Secretary to reverse
Decision of Director
Doctrine is not applicable to OMB.

 The authority of the DENR technical team

which conducted the survey emanated
from the Special Order issued by the
DENR Secretary, the alter ego of the
President. His acts are presumed to be
the acts of the President, unless
repudiated by the latter (Province of
Camarines Norte vs. Province of Quezon,
367 SCRA 91).

 Department Secretaries cannot delegate their duties as

members of NPB, much less their power to vote &
approve board resolutions (NPC Drivers and Mechanics
Assn. vs. NPC, 503 SCRA 138).
DENR Secretarys Order transferring the regional office
from Cotabato City to Koronadal City is deemed the
Presidents act. As Executive head, Pres.under Art. Vll
Sec. 17 has continuing authority to reorganize any agency
of Exec. branch. This power may be delegated to his
cabinet members under doctrine of qualified political
agency (DENR Sec. vs. DENR Employees,409 SCRA
359).

Principle of Presidential Power of

Control
Presidents power over the executive branch of government,
including all executive officers xxx (Sec. 17, Art. Vll).
Power to alter, modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate had done in the performance of his duties & to
substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter.
Reorganization of DOH under EO 102: not a usurpation of
legislative power. EO 292 gives continuing authority to the
President to reorganize the admin structure of the OP (Tondo
Medical Center Employees Assn. vs. CA, 527 SCRA 748).

Cases
There is nothing unconstitutional if the
President directs the development of housing
project w/o DENR authorization to reclaim the
land but makes DENR a member of the
implementing committee. The President can
exercise executive power motu proprio. The
ultimate power over alienable & disposable
public land (Smokey Mountain) is reposed in
the President & not the DENR Secretary
(Chavez vs. NHA, 530 SCRA 241).

 The creation of PTC under EO 1 is not justified by

Presidents power of control. Control is essentially
power to alter xxx. It is different from the power to
create public offices. The former is inherent in
Executive while the latter finds basis from either a
valid delegation from Congress or his inherent duty
to faithfully execute the laws. PTC is not borne out
of restructuring of OP under EO 292. The creation of
PTC finds basis under Art. Vll Sec.17 imposing duty
on Pres. to ensure faithful execution of laws
(Biraogo vs. PTC, 637 SCRA 78).

 Distinguishing power of control from power of

supervision: In the latter, the Chief Executive
has power of mere oversight over LGUs. He
checks whether LGU or its officers perform
their duties as provided by law; ensures that
rules are followed but cannot lay down such
rules. While in control, Chief Executive lays
down rules in doing of an act xxx (Bito-onon
vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732).

Presidents Power of General

Supervision
ensuring that laws are faithfully executed,
or the subordinate acts within the law
not incompatible with power to discipline
which includes power to investigate
Jurisdiction over admin disciplinary cases
vs. elective local officials lodged in two
authorities: Disciplining Authority and
Investigating Authority

 Presidents power of general supervision extends to

the Liga ng mga Barangay. The representatives of the
Liga sit in an ex officio capacity at the municipal, city
& provincial sanggunians. Liga is the vehicle thru w/c
the barangay participates in enactment of ordinances
(Bito-Onon vs. Fernandez, 350 SCRA 732).
The Liga ng mga Barangay is not subject to control by
Chief Executive or his alter ego. The acts of the DILG
in nullifying results of Liga elections & appointing
Rayos as Pres. of Liga-Caloocan went beyond
supervision (David vs. Paredes, 439 SCRA 130).

Findings of Facts
General rule and exceptions
Bautista vs. Araneta, 326 SCRA 234 (tenancy issue)
Fabian vs. Agustin, 14 February 2003 (conflicting
factual findings)
The issue of whether or not petitioner is an alter ego
of Milagros Matuguina, the losing party in the MNR
case, is one of fact, and should be threshed out in
said admin proceedings & not in prohibition
proceedings in court (Matuguina Wood Products vs.
CA, 263 SCRA 508).

When may courts review

administrative decisions?
determine constitutionality of a law, treaty or
order
determine jurisdiction of admin body
Determine any other question of law
determine question of fact when necessary
to determine either a constitutional or
jurisdictional issue, the commission of
abuse of authority, or error of law.

 All errors or decisions of admin bodies involving

questions of law are subject to judicial review under
Sec. 5 (2e), Art. Vlll of Constitution.
Principle that only questions of law shall be raised
in an appeal by petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 admits of exceptions, namely:
1. findings are grounded entirely on speculations or
conjectures;
2. inference made is manifestly mistaken;
3. there is grave abuse of discretion;

4. judgment is based on misappreciation of facts;

5. findings of facts are conflicting;
6. findings are conclusions w/o citation of specific
evidence on w/c they are based;
7. factual findings premised on supposed absence of
evidence but contradicted by evidence on record
(Bernaldo vs. OMB, 562 SCRA 60). Here, the OMB
decision suspending Bernaldo for 9 mos. (as affirmed
by CA) was not supported by substantial evidence. SC
granted her petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45.

 Evidentiary or factual matters are not proper grounds in a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Such petition will prosper
only if there is showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act
w/o or in excess of jurisdiction of admin tribunal.
Requisites for petition for certiorari to proper: Petitioner
TACC must show that a. LLDA acted w/o or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion; and
b. there is no appeal or a plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law. The plain & adequate remedy is
a MR of the assailed decision (Alexandra Condo. Corp. vs.
LLDA, 599 SCRA 455).

 Mixed questions of facts and law are subject to

judicial review (Doctrine of Assimilation of
Facts). This doctrine states that when a finding
of fact is so intimately involved and dependent
upon a question of law, the court will, in order
to resolve the question of law, examine the
factual setting including the evidence adduced
thereto. The more important issue, which is of
law, assimilates the facts.

 The PEA decision to dismiss petitioners

from the service, upon recommendation of
PAGC as approved by the President after
due proceedings, should have been
appealed to the CSC under EO 292. From
CSC, it can be elevated to the CA via a
petition for review under Rule 43. From
there, it can be appealed to the SC thru a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 (Lacson vs. PEA & PAGC, 30 May 2011)

 Difference bet. Rule 45 petition (Petition for

Review on Certiorari) and a Rule 65 petition
(Petition for Certiorari): A Rule 65 petition is an
original action that dwells on jurisdictional errors
of whether a lower court/tribunal acted without or
in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. A Rule 45 petition is a mode of appeal
which centers on the review of a judgment, final
order or award rendered by a lower court/tribunal
involving purely questions of law.

Immunities
Admin bodies cannot grant criminal and civil
immunities to persons unless the law explicitly
confers such power
PCGG under EO 14A may grant immunity from
criminal prosecution xxx
Apply Art 2028, Civil Code: amicable settlement
in civil cases applicable to PCGG cases
OMB under Sec. 17 of RA 6770 may grant
immunity from criminal prosecution xxx

Three-fold Responsibility
A public official may be held civilly, criminally
and administratively liable for violation of duty or
for a wrongful act or omission.
These remedies may be invoked separately,
alternately, simultaneously or successively.
Defeat of any of the three remedies will not
necessarily preclude resort to other remedies or
affect decisions reached thereat, as different
degrees of evidence are required in these
several actions.

 Rule: Admin cases are independent from criminal cases.

The former will not govern or affect the latter or vice versa.
Exception: Law expressly provides for prior final
administrative determination (Chua vs. Ang, 598 SCRA
232). One such law is in the prosecution of unfair labor
practice under the Labor Code where no criminal
prosecution for ULP can be instituted w/o a final judgment
in a previous administrative proceeding. Where law is
silent, the fundamental principle that admin cases are
independent from criminal cases fully applies. [no such
requirement re: criminal complaint for violation of PD 957]

 A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question

even if the same facts are attendant in disbarment proceedings
(Gatchalian Talent Pool vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406).
Absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean an
absence of any evidence for there is another class of evidence
w/c, though insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, is adequate in admin case (NIA Coordtr Ocampo vs.
Ombudsman, 322 SCRA 22).
In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof of guilt is at the
highest level, followed by clear & convincing evidence,
preponderance of evidence and substantial evidence, in that
order.

 Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria vs. Sunga ,

368 SCRA 551)
Sec. 20 of RA 6770 refers not to prescription but the
discretion given to the OMB. The OMB may not conduct
admin investigation if the complaint was filed after 1 year
from occurrence of act or omission complained of.
Object sought is not punishment of officer but improvement
of public service & preservation of public faith & confidence.
While complaint was filed by FFIB more than 7 yrs. after
commission (1992), OMB may still investigate (Omb. vs.
BAC Chair De Sahagun, 562 SCRA 123).

 The death or retirement of officer from the

service does not preclude a finding of
administrative liability to which he shall be
answerable. Jurisdiction over the admin
complaint was not lost by mere fact of
respondent Caubes death during pendency of
the admin case. The tribunal retains jurisdiction
to pronounce him innocent or guilty (Exec.
Judge Loyao vs. Clerk of Court Caube, 402
SCRA 33).

 The withdrawal of a complaint or desistance of

complainant will not automatically result to dismissal
of admin case. Complainant is a mere witness xxx.
The tribunal has an interest apart from complainants
own in determining the truth & when necessary,
imposing sanctions vs. erring employees.
Rule on anonymous complaints: such complaints do
not always justify outright dismissal, particularly
when the allegations may be easily verified and
established by other competent evidence.

 Under Doctrine of Forgiveness or Condonation,

elective officials cannot be subject to disciplinary action
for administrative misconduct committed during a prior
term. Reasons for the rule.
While a reelected official may no longer be held
administratively liable for signing a questionable contract
before his reelection, this will not prejudice the filing of
any case other than administrative vs. him (Garcia vs.
Mojica, 314 SCRA 207).
Doctrine cannot benefit appointive officer seeking
elective office (Ombudsman vs. Torres, 566 SCRA 365).

Aggrieved Party who may appeal the

administrative decision
Sec.39(a), PD 807: Appeals, where allowable,
shall be made by the party adversely affected
by the decision.
CSC as aggrieved party may appeal the CA
decision to SC. By this ruling, SC abandoned &
overruled prior decisions that the Civil Service
Law does not contemplate a review of decisions
exonerating public officers from administrative
charges (CSC vs. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 426).

 CSC decides on appeal all administrative disciplinary

cases involving the imposition of a penalty of
suspension for more than 30 days, or a fine in an
amount exceeding 30 days salary, demotion, transfer
or dismissal from service (Sec. 37 PD 807).
A party may elevate a decision of CSC before the CA
thru petition for review under Rule 43 of Revised Rules
of Court.
The Ombudsman has clear legal interest to intervene
in the petition for review on certiorari before the CA
(OMB vs. CT Samaniego, 564 SCRA 569).

 Gen. Rule: Decisions of administrative agencies have,

upon their finality, the binding effect of a final judgment
w/in purview of res judicata doctrine.
Exceptions to the res judicata doctrine:
a. supervening events make it imperative to modify a final
judgment to harmonize it with prevailing circumstances.
b. its application would sacrifice justice to technicality.
c. parties involved waived it or do not timely raised it as a
defense.
d. issue of citizenship

PNP
Sec. 6, Art. XVl of 1987 Constitution
Authority of local chief executives: one of
operational control & supervision (Sec. 62 RA 8551)
Power of PLEB to dismiss PNP members upon
citizens complaint under Sec. 42 of RA 6975 is
concurrent with PNP Chief/regional directors under
Sec. 45.
Appellate jurisdiction of NAPOLCOM thru NAB and
RAB
Appeals from decision of NAPOLCOM should be
with DILG and then with CSC.

 Criminal cases involving PNP members are w/in

exclusive jurisdiction of regular courts. Courtsmartial are not courts but are instrumentalities of
executive power.
Regional Police Director has prerogative to name
the 5 eligibles for position of city police chief (3 for
provincial police chief) from a pool of eligible
officers screened by the Senior Officers Promotion
& Selection Board of the PNP w/o interference from
local executives. The mayor has limited power to
select one from among the list of eligibles as police
chief (Andaya vs. RTC, 319 SCRA 696).

AFP
An Act Strengthening Civilian Supremacy over
the Military by Returning to Civil Courts the
Jurisdiction over Certain Offenses involving AFP
Members, Other Persons Subject to Military Law
(RA 7055)
General Rule: AFP members & other persons
subject to military law, who commit crimes
penalized under RPC (like coup detat), other
special penal laws, or local ordinances shall be
tried by the proper civil court.

 Exception: Where the civil court, before

arraignment, has determined the offense
to be service connected, then the
offending soldier shall be tried by a
court martial.
Exception to the exception: Where the
President, in the interest of justice, directs
before arraignment that any such crime
shall be tried by the proper civil court.

 Service-connected offenses are limited to those

defined in the Articles of War (CA 408), violations of
which are triable by courts martial. The delineation of
jurisdiction between civil courts and courts martial over
crimes committed by military personnel is necessary to
preserve the peculiar nature of military justice system,
which is aimed at achieving the highest form of
discipline to ensure the highest degree of military
efficiency. The charge vs. petitioners concerns their
alleged violation of their solemn oath to defend the
Constitution & the duly constituted authorities, w/c is
service-connected (Lt. Gonzales et al vs. Abaya, 498
SCRA 446).

OSG (PD 478; Bk lV, Admin Code)

Gen. Rule: Solicitor General is the lawyer of the
government, its agencies & officials. He represents a
public official in all civil, criminal & special proceedings,
when such proceedings arise from the latters acts in
his official capacity.
Rule: Actions in the name of the RP or its
instrumentality, if not initiated by the Solicitor General,
will be summarily dismissed.
Exceptions:
1. When the government office is adversely affected by
contrary stand of OSG (Orbos vs. CSC, 12 Sept. 1990)
2. SolGen deputizes legal officers xxx (Sec. 35, Ch.
123. Bk lV, EO 292)

 Gen. Rule: SolGen can represent a public

official in all civil, criminal and special
proceedings when such proceedings arise
from the latters acts in his official
capacity.
Exception: Such official or agent is being
charged criminally or being sued civilly for
damages arising from a felony.

Cases
The mention of petitioners name in the complaint for
damages w/the RTC as Telcom Director, arising from
the alleged malicious administrative suit vs. respondent
Raymundo, does not transform the action into one vs.
him in his official capacity (Dir. Pascual vs. Judge
Beltran, 505 SCRA 559).
OSG cannot represent a public official at any stage of a
criminal case or in a civil case for damages arising from
a felony. A public official sued in a criminal case is
actually sued in his personal capacity since the State
can never be the author of a wrongful act. Similarly, any
pecuniary liability an official may be held to account in
the civil suit is for his own account (Urbano vs. Chavez
& Co vs. Chavez, 183 SCRA 347).

 Assuming the PCGG has no authority to

file the petition for certiorari under Rule 65
assailing the dismissal by OMB of the graft
complaint vs. Cojuangco et al, its
unauthorized filing was ratified and the
defect was cured when the OSG signed
as co-counsel for the RP in its
Consolidated Reply (Republic vs.
Desierto, 389 SCRA 452).

Ombudsman Constitutional
Mandate
As protector of the people, OMB has the
power, function and duty to act promptly
on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials and to investigate
any act or omission of any public official
when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

Need for Prompt Action

Delay of 3 years in PI violates accuseds right to due
process xxx (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70)
Angchangco vs. OMB, 13 February 1997
Constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases
extends to all parties in all cases & in all proceedings,
including judicial & quasi-judicial hearings (Ombudsman
vs. Jurado, 561 SCRA 135). No violation of due process
here. [FFI in 1992; admin case in 1997 and
decision in 1999 6 mos. suspension of Customs
employee for neglect of duty]

OMB Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction encompasses all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance & nonfeasance
committed by any officer during his tenure of
office.
OMB is clothed w/authority to conduct PI & to
prosecute all criminal cases involving public
officers & employees, not only w/in the
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, but those w/in
jurisdiction of regular courts (Uy vs.
Ombudsman, 03/20/01).

 OMB authority is shared or concurrent with similarly

authorized govt agencies (Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 227
SCRA 637).
DOJ is not precluded from investigating the case, but if the
case falls under exclusive jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan,
then OMB may in exercise of its primary jurisdiction take
over at any stage the investigation of such case (Honasan
vs. DOJ Panel , 04/13/04).
A money claim vs. a councilor is w/in jurisdiction of court,
not the OMB. If money claim is vs. City Govt, claim is w/in
jurisdiction of SP (Orcullo vs. Gervacio, 314 SCRA 452).

 Under OMB-DOJ MOA dated 3/29/12 (w/c modifies

Joint OMB-DOJ Circular of 10/05/95), OMB has
primary jurisdiction in conduct of PI & inquest over
cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan.
Both have concurrent jurisdiction over cases w/in
jurisdiction of RTC/MTC; but the office where such
complaint is filed for PI acquires jurisdiction to
exclusion of the other; provided that OMB may refer
any complaint to DOJ. Also, the prosecution of cases
investigated by OMB but referred to DOJ for
prosecution is under DOJ control.

Who are not subject to OMB

Disciplinary Authority?
Impeachable Officials
* In re: Raul M. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771
Members of Congress (Sec. 16, Art. Vl)
OMB vs. Mojica, 452 SCRA 714
Judiciary (Sec. 6, Art. Vlll)
* Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 46
* Caoibes vs. Alumbres, 07/19/01
* Fuentes vs. Ombudsman, 368 SCRA 36
* Garcia vs. Miro, 582 SCRA 127 (2009)

 Where a criminal complaint vs. a judge or court

employee arises from this administrative duties, the
OMB must defer action on said complaint & refer the
same to the SC for determination whether said judge
or employee had acted w/in scope of his administrative
duties (Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464).
OMB has no jurisdiction to investigate the alleged
undue delay in disposition of criminal case w/c
involves determination whether the judge acted in
accord with Code of Judicial Conduct (Dolalas vs.
Ombudsman, 265 SCRA 819).

 Before a civil or criminal action vs. a judge for

violation of Art. 204 (Knowingly rendering unjust
judgment) & Art. 205 RPC can be entertained, there
must be a final & authoritative judicial declaration that
the decision is unjust (Fuentes vs. OMB).
The criminal case filed vs. MCTC Judge Garcia was in
no way related to the performance of his duties as a
judge. It is for Reckless Imprudence resulting to
homicide of RPC and thus the OMB had jurisdiction to
conduct PI & file information in court (Garcia vs. Miro,
582 SCRA 127).

Cases on Preventive Suspension

Meaning of phrase under his authority in
RA 6770: all officials under investigation by
his office regardless of the branch of
government in w/c they are employed
(Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207)
Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 233
SCRA 311
Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 646
OMB vs. Valera, 471 SCRA 718

Finality and Execution of Decision

Decision is final, executory and unappealable if
respondent is acquitted, or penalty is reprimand,
suspension of not more than one month, or fine
equivalent to one month salary.
*Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753
All other cases, appeal to CA on verified petition for
review within 10 days (not to SC on petition for
certiorari under Sec. 27 RA 6670 w/c is
unconstitutional).
Remedy from OMB decision exonerating respondent
(LWUA Admtr. Reyes vs. Belisario, 596 SCRA 31)

Effect of Appeal on Decision

An appeal shall not stop the decision from being
executory. In case penalty is suspension or
removal and respondent wins the appeal, he
shall be considered as being under preventive
suspension and he shall be paid the salary
(OMB Admin. Order No. 17 dated 09/07/03).
A decision of the Ombudsman shall be executed
as a matter of course. Failure or refusal to
comply with the OMB Order shall be a ground
for disciplinary action (Sec 26 RA 6770).

Immediate Execution of
Administrative Decisions
The decision of the Ombudsman imposing six
months suspension without pay upon Mayor
Buencamino for abuse of authority is immediately
executory under AO No. 17 of the Ombudsman
(Buencamino vs. CA, 520 SCRA 747).
The Ombudsmans decision imposing the penalty of
suspension for one year is immediately executory
pending appeal (OMB vs. CT Samaniego, 632
SCRA 140). Note: This set aside its earlier ruling.

Cases on Preliminary Investigation

Petitioners may not compel OMB to order
production of documents if in his judgment such
documents are not necessary xxx (Mamburao vs.
OMB, 344 SCRA 818).
Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721
Garcia vs. Primo, 397 SCRA 41
SC is not a trier of facts and as such cannot
review the evidence adduced by parties before
OMB on issue of absence or presence of probable
cause.

 Where there appears to be grave abuse of

discretion on the part of the OMB in dismissing
the case by ignoring vital pieces of evidence
submitted by PCGG xxx, the SC reversed the
dismisal of the OMB and directed the filing of
the proper information vs. Disini et al. A finding
of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that more likely than not a
crime has been committed by the respondents
(PCGG vs. Desierto, 22 January 2007).

Effect on OMB re COAs Non-Finding of

Liability
COAs approval of a government officials
disbursements only relates to the administrative
aspect of the matter of his accountability but it
does not foreclose the Ombudsmans authority
to investigate and determine whether there
is a crime to be prosecuted for which such
official is answerable. While COA may regard
the official to have substantially complied with
its accounting rules, this fact is not sufficient to
dismiss the criminal case. (Aguinaldo vs.
Sandiganbayan, 265 SCRA 121)

 The fact that petitioners accounts and vouchers

had passed in audit is no ground to enjoin the
fiscal from conducting PI to determine their
criminal liability for malversation (Ramos vs.
Aquino). A finding of probable cause does not
derive its veracity from the COA findings but from
the OMBs independent determination. Although
the COA Report may aid the OMB in conducting
its PI, such report is not a prerequisite
(Dimayuga vs. OMB, 495 SCRA 461).

Remedies from a probable cause

finding
Only one MR or reinvestigation allowed within
five (5) days from notice, with leave of court
where information has already been filed in court.
Validity of information is not affected by lack of
notice of adverse resolution to the respondent
(Kuizon vs. Desierto, 354 SCRA 158).
Filing of MR/reinvestigation does not prevent the
immediate filing of information in court (Pecho vs.
Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116).

Court of Appeals; No Authority Over

OMB Resolutions in Criminal Cases.
The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives
and decisions of the OMB in administrative
disciplinary cases only it cannot review the
orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in
criminal or non-administrative cases. Since
the CA has no jurisdiction over decisions of
the Ombudsman in criminal cases, its ruling
directing the withdrawal of the criminal case
filed by the Ombudsman before the RTC
against respondent POEA employee Fung is
void (Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321).

Forfeiture Proceedings for

ill-gotten wealth
PCGG is empowered to bring proceedings
for forfeiture of property allegedly
unlawfully acquired before Feb. 25, 1986,
while power to investigate ill-gotten wealth
acquired after said date is vested in the
Ombudsman (Rep. vs. Sandiganbayan,
237 SCRA 242)

 The Ombudsman is without authority to initiate

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

COA
Constitutional mandate
Coverage of COAs jurisdiction
COA and Central Bank have concurrent jurisdiction to
examine and audit govt banks, but COA audit prevails
for 2 reasons (COA is constitutionally mandated auditor
& CB has no power to allow or disallow expenditures
xxx).
Entitlement of informers reward as determined by BIR
and DOF, although conclusive on the executive
agencies, is not binding on COA (Commissioner of
Internal Revenue vs. COA, 218 SCRA 204)

 COA cannot disallow the payment of back wages

to employees, w/c had been decreed pursuant to
a final CSC decision (Cagatin vs. COA, 21 March
2000)
COA disallowance of extension of foreign
consultants services embodied in the KFW
foreign loan (NHA vs. COA, 226 SCRA 65)
COA classification as to who were entitled to the
social amelioration benefits & excluding those
SRA employees hired after 10/31/89 has no legal
basis (Cruz vs. COA, 368 SCRA 85).

Central Bank
Actions of the MB in proceedings on insolvency
are final and executory and may not be set aside
except upon convincing proof the action is
plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith.
Close now and hear later policy
~no prior notice and hearing required
~prerequisites to MB action to close down
a bank and appoint receiver
~rationale

Good Luck!!
End