ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2014-2015

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLE
A. Dfn: Branch of public law that fixes the organization of the government and determines competence of authorities
who execute the law and indicates to the individual remedies for the violations of his rights.
B.

Admin. Law v. Public Admin.

- pra ctica l m an ag em en t a nd d irec tio n o f the va ri ou s org ans of th e S ta te an d the execution of state
policies by the executive and administrative officers entrusted with such functions
-subject matter of administrative law is public administration

C. Admin. Law v. Politics

D.Origin & Devt
Administrative law is a recent development , being a consequence of the ever increasing complexities of society
and the proliferation of problems of government that cannot readily or effectively be addressed by the public
agencies or solved by other disciplines of public law.
It was felt that thelegislative and judicial departments no longer had either the time or the needed expertise to
attend to these new problems.
Thus, the obvious solution was delegation of power.
Two major powers of the administrative agency:
1. Quasi-legislative authority or rule making power
2. Quasi-judicial power or adjudicatory function
E. Sources
1. Constitution or statutory enactments e.g. Social Security Act which established the Social Security
Commission.
2. Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of administrative bodies
3. Rules and regulations issued by the administrative bodies e.g. Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
4. Determinations and orders of the administrative bodies in the settlement of controversies
F. Administration
1. Institution: aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are entrusted by the people
for the time being
2. Function: administration as the actual running of the government by the executive authorities through the
enforcement of laws and implementation of policies.
3. Internal
- treats of the legal relations between the government and its administrative officers, and of the legal relations
that one administrative officer or organ bears to another
- comprehends topics as nature of public office, de jure and de facto officers, incompatible and forbidden offices
- considers legal aspects of public administration on its institutional side
a. legal structure or organization of public administration; legal aspects of its institutional activities; legal
questions in overall management
b. legal qualifications for office; legal disqualifications, appointment, removal, tenure, compensation; legal
aspects of hierarchical form of department; legal relation of administrative superior and subordinate; legal
relation between power of removal and power of direction
4. External
concerned with legal relations between administrative authorities and private interests 4 parts:
a. survey of those powers and duties of administrative authorities that relate directly to private interests
b. analysis of the scope and limits of such powers
c. some account of the sanctions attached to, or the means of enforcing, official determinations
d. examination of remedies against official action
II.
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
A. Dfn: a body endowed with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers for the purpose of enabling it to carry out the
laws entrusted to it for enforcement or execution.
-

may be regarded as an arm of the legislature insofar as it is authorize to promulgate rules.

may also be loosely considered a court because it performs functions of a particular judicial character, as
when it decides factual and sometimes even legal questions as an incident of its general power of
regulation.

B. Nature: Administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law and those that are
necessarily implied in the exercise thereof
C. Creation & Abolition
The administrative body may be created by the Constitution or by a Statute.

If created by the Constitution itself, the administrative body can be altered or abolished only by Constitution.
But where the body was created only by statute, the legislature that breathed life into it can amend or even
repeal its charter, thereby resulting in its abolition which is justified if made in good faith.

D.Advantages
1. Dispute resolution: allows parties to easily resolve their disputes. These disputes are resolved in a more
reasonable and convenient manner as compared to trial courts. It also promotes uniform justice application
as it applies to public agencies and public officials.
2.

Lower costs: Because administrative law encourages quick resolution of conflicts than in the standard
courts and judicial system, the costs of running it is comparatively lower.

3.

Benefit litigants: In general, tribunal proceedings in administrative law function to the benefit of
litigants. This is credited to the speedy justice delivery as well as the cost efficiency.

4.

De-clog Dockets: the use of administrative law and tribunals, the standard judicial courts no longer
require dealing with the administrative matters. The courts are therefore released from the time
consuming case hearing linked to certain administrative issues. Actually, an administrative court is better
served to evaluate and weigh evidence in the arising administrative issues.

III. POWERS OF ADMIN. AGENCIES

A. Quasi- Leg. Power
1. Dfn: the authority delegated by the law-making body to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations
intended to carry out the provisions of a law and implement legislative policy.
2. QLP v. Leg. Powers
a. LEGISLATIVE power involves the discretion to determine what the law shall be. QUASI-legislative power
only involves the discretion to determine how the law shall be enforced.
b. LEGISLATIVE power CANNOT be delegated. QUASI-legislative power CAN be delegated.
3. Sources
a. provision in Constitution
b. statutes under which they claim to act
4. Test of Delegation
a. Completeness Test: 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.
1. United States v. Ang Tang Ho
2. Velarde v. Social Justice Society
3. Beltran v. Sec. of Health
4. The Soli- Gen. v. The Metropolitan Manila Authority
5. BOCEA v. Sec. of Finance
b.

Sufficient Standard Test: 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.
6. Ynot v. IAC
7. Pelaez v. Auditor Gen.
8. Abakada Guro Party List Officers v. Sec. Ermita
9. Batangas CATV, Inc v. CA: Ordinances passed by virtue of the implied power found in the General
Welfare Clause must be reasonable, consonant with the general powers and purposes of the corporation,
and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the state
10.
De Los Angeles v. Home Development Mutual Fund: Rules and regulations, which are the
product of a delegated power to create new and 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.
It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and be not in
contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law.
11.
GUINGONA, JR. vs. Hon. Carague: The Constitution did not need for exact, definite, or certain
appropriations made by law. These appropriations may be implied or expressed, and specific or general.

12.
TATAD vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OD ENERGY: even if the law does not
expressly pinpoint the standard, the courts will bend over backwards to locate the same elsewhere in
order to spare the status from constitutional conformity.
13.
Cruz v. Santon Youngberg
14.
Comm. Of Customs v. Hypermix
B. Quasi- Judicial Power (QJP)
1. Dfn: power of administrative authorities to make determinations of facts in the performance of their official
duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts so found. The exercise of this power is only
incidental to the main function of administrative authorities, which is the enforcement of the law
2. QJP v. Judicial Power
a. judicial decisions are bound by precedent in common law, whereas quasi-judicial decisions usually are not so
bound;
b. In the absence of precedent in common law, judicial decisions may create new law, whereas quasi-judicial
decisions must be based on conclusions of existing law; [1]
c. Quasi-judicial bodies need not follow strict judicial rules of evidence and procedure;
d. Quasi-judicial bodies must hold formal hearings only if mandated to do so under their governing laws or
regulations[1]
e. A court may not be a judge in its own cause, but a quasi-judicial body may both be a party in a matter and
also issue a decision thereon;
3. Source
a. provision in Constitution
b. statutes under which they claim to act
4. Exercise of Powers
The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power requires compliance with two conditions, to wit:
a.

Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body

b.

Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings

C. Determinative Powers
1.
Enabling permit the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate;
2.
Directing order the doing or performance of particular acts to ensure compliance with the law and are often
exercised for corrective purposes
3.
Dispensing to relax the general operation of a law or to exempt from general prohibition, or relieve an
individual or a corporation from an affirmative duty;
4.
Examining - also called investigatory power;
5.
Summary power to apply compulsion or force against persons or property to effectuate a legal purpose
without judicial warrants to authorize such actions.
6. Equitable- those that pertain to the power to determine the law upon a particular state of facts. It refers
to the right to, and must, consider and make proper application of the rules of equity.
Ex. Power to appoint a receiver, power to issue injunctions
IV. QUASI- LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION
A. Nature
15. Comm. V. CA
16. Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA
17. OPLE vs. Torres: Administrative orders should be in harmony of the law and should be for the sole
purpose of implementing the law and carrying out its legislative policy.
18. Sierra Madre Trust v. Sec. of Agri. And Nat. Resources
19. Perlata v. CSC
20. Shell Phils. Inc. v. Central Bank of thePhils.
21. Grego v. COMELEC
B. Kinds of Admin. Regulations
DISTINCTIONS
LEGISLATIVE
1.
Capacity
that Legislative
administrative agency is
acting in
2. What administrative
It supplements the statute by filling in the
agency is doing
details
3. Force and effect
Legislative regulations have the force and
effecr of law immediately upon going into
effect. Such is accorded by the courts or by

INTERPRETATIVE
Judicial
It says what the statute means
Merely persuasive/
Received by the courts with much
respect but not accorded with

express provision of statute.

22. Misamis Or. Assoc. of Coco Traders v. DOF
23. Phil. Assoc. of Svcs. Exporters, Inc. v. Hon. Torres
24. Boie- Takeda Chemicals v. De La Serna

finality

C. Rqts.
1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature.
2. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature.
25.
Cebu Oxygen Acetylene Co. v. Drilon
26.
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice
3. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
As for publication, the applicable rule is now found in Executive Order No. 200 which provides that laws shall
take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or
in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the
administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents
of the law.
4. It must be reasonable
27.Tanada v. Tuvera
28.De Jesus v. COA
29.Eslao v. Comm. On Audit
30.Araneta v. Hon. Gatmaitan
D.Admin. Rule w/ Penal Sctn.
1. Rqts.
1. The law itself must make violation of the administrative regulation punishable.
2. The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of the regulation.
3. The regulation must be published.
31. Pp v. Macaren
32. Tayug Rural Bank v. Central Bank of the Phils.
33. Lorenzo v. Dir. Of Health
34. Pesigan v. Judge Angeles
E. Necessity for Notice & Hearing
General Rule: Administrative rules of GENERAL application do NOT require previous notice and hearing.
Exception: When the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on certain
facts as determined at an appropriate investigation.
:If the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy between specific parties, it is considered an
administrative adjudication, requiring notice and hearing.
35.
Corona v. United Harbor Pilot Assoc.of the Phils.
36.
CIR v. CA
37.
Maceda v. ERB
38.
Warren Mfg. Workers Union v. BLR
40.
Taxicab Operations of Metro Manila Inc. v. Board of Transpo.
41.
Phil. Consumers Found., Inc. v. Sec. of DECS
42.
Lina, Jr. v. Carino
V. QUASI- JUDICIAL POWER
A. Dfn: power vested in the commissions established by law, administrative officers, or bodies to
determine the rights of those who appear before it. A quasi-judicial power has been described as the
power or duty to investigate and to draw conclusions from such investigations.
B. Jurisdiction:
1. Nature of the Proceedings
The law may allow some administrative bodies to award certain kinds of damages while denying the same
power, for no apparent reason, to other administrative bodies.
It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial
power.
2. Necessity of Jurisdiction
Without jurisdiction, the determination made by the administrative bodies are absolutely null and without
any legal effect whatsoever.

3. Subpoena Power
administrative bodies may summon witnesses and require the production of evidence only when duly
allowed by law, and always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate.
4. Contempt Power
Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid or Regional Trial
Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case falls. The Court may punish customacy or refusal as
contempt.
C. Notice & Hearing (G.R.)
1. right to a hearing;
2. tribunal must consider evidence presented;
3. decision must have something to support itself;
4. evidence must be substantial;
5. decision must be based on evidence adduced at hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to
parties;
6. board of judges must act on its independent consideration of facts and law of the case, and not simply accept
view of subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
7. decision must be rendered in such a manner that parties to controversy can know various issues involved and
reason for decision rendered.(Ang Tibay vs CIR, 69 Phil 635)
Exceptions:
Administrative Determinations Where Notice and Hearing Not Necessary:
1.
Summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon property of delinquent taxpayer;
2.
Grant of provisional authority for increase of rates, or to engage in particular line of business;
3.
Cancellation of passport where no abuse of discretion is committed;
4.
Summary abatement of nuisance per se which affects safety of persons or property;
5.
Preventive suspension of officer or employee pending investigation; and
6.
Grant or revocation of licenses for permits to operate certain businesses affecting public order or morals.
44. Ang Tibay v.CIR
45. Police Comm. V. Lood
46. Bautista v. BOE
47. CSC v. Hernandez
48. Montemayor v. CA
49. Cruz v. CSC
50. Universal Robina Corp. v. Laguna Lake Devt Auth.
D.Rights against Self- Incrimination
- covers testimonial compulsion only and the compulsion to produce real or physical evidence using the
body of the accused
- applies to commutative testimony and not mechanical testimony
- applies to commutative testimony and not mechanical testimony
> Commutative testimony involves the use of intelligence on the part of the accused or witness.
Corrorarily, on cases on self-incrimination, the following are permissiblesubstance from the body,
morphine from mouth, put on pants, physical exam, wallet, picture taking, etc. The following on the
other hand are not permissiblehandwriting, signature, and similar incidents which involve the use of
intelligence..
An ordinary witness may invoke the right but he may only do so as each incriminating question is asked
The accused himself may invoke the right, but unlike the ordinary witness, he may altogether refuse to take
the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions.
> But once the accused waives his right and chooses to testify on his own behalf, he may be crossexamined on matters covered in his direct examination. He cannot refuse to answer questions during
cross-examination by claiming that the answer that he will give could incriminate him for the crime he is
being charged.
> However, if the question during cross-examination relates to a crime different from that which he was
charged, he can still invoke the right and refuse to answer.
51. Cabal v. Kapunan
52. Pascual v. Board of Med. Examiners
53. Phil. Board of Communications v. CIR
E. Admin. Appeal & Review
1.
Where provided by law, appeal from administrative determination may be made to higher or superior
administrative officer or body.
2.
By virtue of power of control of President, President himself or through Department Head may affirm, modify,
alter, or reverse administrative decision of subordinate.
3.
Appellate administrative agency may conduct additional hearing in appealed case, if deemed necessary.
54. Araneta v. Gatmaitan

55.
56.
57.
58.

Briones v. Aute
Fortich v. Corona
SGMC v. Office of the President
Maxima realty v. Parkway Realty Estate

F. Doctrine of Res Judicat: has the force and binding effect of a final judgment (note: applies only to judicial and
quasi judicial proceedings not to exercise of administrative functions, Brillantes vs. Castro 99 Phil. 497)
59. Ysmael v. Deputy Exec. Secretary
60. United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union v. Laguesma
61. Fortich v. Corona
62. Montemayor v. Bundalian
63. Flores v. Montemayor
VI. JUDICIAL REVIEW
A. GR: administrative decision is no more reviewable by the courts of justice than are judicial decisions reviewable by
administrative bodies.
XPN: if Consti. or law provides otherwise or if the issues reviewed involve questions of law.
In the case of the constitutional commissions, it is provided that any decision order or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days
from receipt of a copy thereof.
B. Sources:
Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and Guideline implementing Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg. 129, (the Court of
Appeals may review final decisions, orders, awards or resolutions or regional trial courts and of all quasijudicial bodies, except the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, the Sandiganbayan, and
decisions issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals.)
-

Other appeals are prescribed by special laws, such as RA No. 1125, providing for appeal to the Court of
Tax Appeals of any decision rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of
Customs, or any provincial or city board of assessment appeals.

C. Methods:
prescribed by the Constitution, statutes or the Rules of the Court. These methods may be specific or
general.
-

SPECIFIC: RA No. 5434 that an appeal from a final award, order or decisions of the Patent Office shall be
taken by filing with said body and with the Court of Appeals a notice of appeal within 15 days from notice
of such award, order or ruling, copies being served on all interested parties.

GENERAL: Admin. Code generally provides that an appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by
filing with the agency within 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 perfected within 15 days from receipt of final decision

One MR may be allowed. If MR denied, movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for
appeal. If MR is allowed, the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt to perfect his appeal.

SC may review decisions of Office of the Pres. On questions of law and jurisdiction when properly raised.

AXIOMS BY THE SC
1. before said actions may be entertained, it must be shown that all the administrative remedies
prescribed by law or ordinance have been exhausted
2. the administrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that
the administrative official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with a grave
abuse of discretion

D.Question may be Subject of Judicial Review

1. Questions of FACT
The general rule is that courts will not disturb the findings of administrative agencies acting within the
parameters of their own competence so long as such findings are supported by substantial evidence. By reason

of their special knowledge, expertise, and experience, the courts ordinarily accord respect if not finality to factual
findings of administrative tribunals.
XPN:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures

When the interference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible
When there is GAD
When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts
When the findings of fact are conflicting
When in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues in the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee
7. When the finding are contrary to the trial court
8. When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based
9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in theh petitioners main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent
10. When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record
11. When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion.

2. Question of LAW
Administrative decision may be appealed to the courts independently of legislative permission.
It may be appealed even against legislative prohibition because the judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent
power to review all decisions on questions of law.
E. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for
administrative review , and provides for a system of administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts, for
reasons of law, comity and convenience, will not entertain the case UNLESS the available administrative remedies
have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.
-

An admin. decision must first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest level before it
may be elevated to a court of justice for review.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.

Union Bank v. CA
Lopez v.City of Manila
Industrial Enterprise Inc. v. CA
Comm. Of Customs v. Navarro
Cristobal v. CA
Paat v. CA
Gonza;es v. CA
Vicente v. COMELEC
DAR v. APEX Investment
Hon. Carale, et. Al. v. Abarintos & Pontejos
Corsiga v. Hon. Quirino Defensor
Universal Robina Corp. v. Laguna Lake Devt authority
Vigilar v. Aquino
Addition Hills v. Megaworld Properties

F. Doctrine of Prior Resort: where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon administrative body to act upon
a matter involving administrative questions, no resort to courts may be made before such administrative body shall
have acted upon the matter.
78. Industrial Enterprises Inc. v. CA
79. Comm. Of Customs v. Navarro
80. Cristobal v. CA
81. Paat v. CA
82. Camid v. Office of the President
G.Doctrine of Finality of Admin. Action: no resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been
completed and there is nothing left to be done in administrative structure.
83. Sta. Rosa Mining v. Liedo
84. SSS Employees Assoc. v. Bathan-Velasco
85. Almendra v. Judge asis
86. Laguna CATV v. Maraan
H.Effect of Non- Compliance: as a general rule, failure to exhaust admin. remedies do not affect the jurisdiction of
the court and merely results in the lack of cause of action which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss.
** Motion to dismiss must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, even before filing the answer
to the complaint otherwise, such ground for dismissal would be deemed waived.

87. Soto v. Jareno

88. LBP v. CA
I. XPN to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies
(1) When the question raised is purely legal (question of law is involved);
(2) When the administrative body is estoppel;
(3) When the act complained of is patently illegal;
(4) When there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
(5) When the claim involved is small;
(6) When irreparable damage will be suffered;
(7) When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(8) When strong public interest is involved;
(9) When the subject of the controversy is private land;
(10) In quo warranto proceedings
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.

Kilusang Bayan v. Dominguez

Vda. De Tan v. Veterans BBackpay Commision
Palma Fernandez v. Dela Paz
Samson v. NLRC
Espina v. CA
Bordallo v. PRC
Enemico v. Office of the Ombudsman

J. Appeal to the President: Tan vs. Director of Forestry, thereafter revived Calo ruling and again required appeal to
the President as a prerequisite to an appeal of a Cabinet member's decision to the courts of Justice

Appeals from the judgments or final orders of the Office of the President may be taken to the CA.
96. Calo v. Fuentes
97. Tan v. Director of Forestry
98. Suyat, Jr. v. Hon. Ruben Torres