ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

E.O. 292
That branch of public law which fixes the organization, determines the competence of
administrative authorities who executes the law, and indicates to the individual remedies
for the violation of his right.
Kinds:
1. Statutes setting up administrative authorities.
2. Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative authorities promulgated
pursuant to the purposes for which they were created.
3. Determinations, decisions and orders of such administrative authorities made in
the settlement of controversies arising in their particular fields.
4. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation and effect of
determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities.
Administrative Code of 1987
The Code is a general law and incorporates in a unified document the major structural,
functional and procedural principles of governance and embodies changes in
administrative structures and procedures designed to serve the people. It covers the
internal administration, i.e., internal organization, personnel and recruitment, supervision
and discipline, and the effects of the functions performed by administrative officials on
private individuals or parties outside government.
Administrative Power
It is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by
proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of
administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can
issue administrative orders, rules and regulations.
Administrative Order
It is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the
administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should
be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.
Administration
a. As a Function
It is the execution, in non-judicial matters, of the law or will of the State as
expressed by competent authority
b. As an Organization
That group or aggregate of persons in whose hands the reins of
government are for the time being.
Government of the Philippines
It refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of the
government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary

appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made
effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the
provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.
Kinds of government:
1. INTERNALlegal side of public administration, e.g., matters concerning
personnel, fiscal and planning activities.
2. EXTERNALdeals with problems of government regulations, e.g.,
regulation of lawful calling of profession, industries or businesses.
Government Instrumentality
It refers to any agency of the national government, not integrated within the department
framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some, if
not all, corporate powers, administering special funds, enjoying operational autonomy,
usually through a charter. It includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and
GOCCs.
Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs)
It refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with
functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and
owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or where
applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one percent
(51%) of its capital stock.
a. Proprietaryif the purpose is to obtain special corporate benefits or earn
pecuniary profit
b. Governmentalif it is in the interest of health, safety and for the
advancement of public good and welfare, affecting public in general.
(Blaquera vs. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366, September 11, 1998)
Those with special charters are government corporations subject to its provisions, and
its employees are under the jurisdiction of the CSC. The PNRC was not impliedly
converted to a private corporation simply because its charter was amended to vest in it
the authority to secure loans, be exempted from payment of all duties, taxes, fees and
other charges, etc. (Camporedondo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 129049, August 6,
1999)
Agency of the Government
It refers to any of the various units of the Government, including a department, bureau,
office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation, or a local
government or a distinct unit therein.

Administrative Bodies or Agencies

Organ of government, other than a court, and other than a legislature, which affects the
rights of private parties either through adjudication or rule-making.

They are created either by:

1. Constitutional provisions;
2. Legislative enactments; or
3. Authority of law.
A body or agency is administrative where its function is primarily regulatory even if it
conducts hearings and determines controversies to carry out its regulatory duty. On its
rule-making authority, it is administrative when it does not have discretion to determine
what the law shall be but merely prescribes details for the enforcement of the law.
Administrative Regulationsalso known as PIECES OF SUBORDINATE
LEGISLATION, QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWERS
It cannot extend the law or amend a legislative enactment, for settled is the rule that
administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. (Land
Bank vs. CA, 249 SCRA 149)
Kinds of Administrative Rules/Regulations
a. Supplementary or detailed legislationto fix the details in the execution and
enforcement of a policy set out in the law
b. Interpretative legislationconstruing or interpreting the provisions of a statute to
be enforced
c. Contingent legislationmade by administrative authority on the existence of
certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law depends
Requisites for A Valid Administrative Regulation
1. Promulgation must be authorized by the legislature
2. The administrative RR must be in accordance with the authority granted by the
legislatureit must not exceed; must be within the scope or purview of the law
3. Promulgation must be in accordance with the duly prescribed procedures
PUBLICATION: (Taada vs. Tuvera) Article 2 of the Civil Code.
Publication is indispensable. It speaks of laws and refers as well as to
administrative RR promulgated by administrative bodies except:
a. Those merely internal in nature
b. Those merely interpretative
Article 3 of the Civil Code presupposes that the law has been published in
the O.G. or in a newspaper of general circulation.
4. The administrative RR must be REASONABLEnot whimsical, not capricious,
not oppressive; it must pass the test of reasonableness
Administrative Rules and Regulations with Penal sanctions;
Additional Requisites:
5. The law must itself declare as punishable the violation of the ARR;
6. The law should define or fix the penalty for the violation of the ARR.

Powers of Administrative Bodies

1. Quasi-Legislative or Rule-making power;
2. Quasi-Judicial or Adjudicatory power; and
3. Determinative powers
Quasi-Legislative function

Quasi-Judicial function

consists of issuances of rules and

refers to its end product called order,

regulations
general applicability
prospective; it envisages the promulgation

reward or decision
applies to specific situation
present determination of rights, privileges

of a rule or regulation generally applicable

or duties as of previous or present time or

in the future

occurrence

Holy Spirit Homeowners Association vs. Secretary Defensor, G.R.

No. 163980,
August 3, 2006, prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but not
against legislative or quasi-legislative functions. In subordinate legislation, as long as
the passage of the rule or regulation had the benefit of a hearing, the procedural due
process requirement is deemed complied with.
Quasi-Legislative Power
This is the exercise of delegated legislative power, involving no discretion as to what the
law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of
a policy set out in the law itself.
The rules and regulations (RR) issued by administrative authorities pursuant to the
powers delegated to them have the force and effect of law; they are binding on all
persons subject to them, and the courts will take judicial notice of them.
PSDSA vs. Sec. De Jesus, G.R. No. 157286, June 16, 2006, it must be
stressed that the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in implementation
of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment.
The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot extend the law or expand its
coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the legislature. It bears
stressing, however, that the administrative bodies are allowed under their power of
subordinate legislation to implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by filling
in the details. All that is required is that the regulation be germane to the objectives and
purposes of the law; that the regulation does not contradict but conforms with the
standards prescribed by law.
Under the law, it is the DOTC which is authorized to administer and enforced all laws,
rules and regulations in the field of transportation and to regulate related activities.

Since the DPWH has no authority to regulate activities related to transportation, the
Tollways Regulatory Board cannot derive its power from the DPWH to issue regulations
governing limited access facilities. (Ames Mirasol vs. DPWH, G.R. No.
158793, 2006)
Necessity of Notice and Hearing
There is no constitutional requirement for a hearing in the promulgation of a general
regulation by an administrative body.
In Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 111953, December 12, 1997, the SC reiterated the rule that prior
hearing is not necessary for the issuance of an ARR.
Doctrine of Legislative Approval by Re-Enactmentthe rules and
regulations promulgated by the proper administrative agency implementing the law are
deemed confirmed and approved by the Legislature when said law was re-enacted by
later legislation or through codification. The Legislature is presumed to have full
knowledge of the contents of the regulations then at the time of re-enactment.
Determinative Powers
1. Enablingto permit or allow something which the law
undertakes to regulate
2. Directingillustrated by the power of assessment of the BIR
or Bureau of
1. Customs
2. Dispensingto exempt from a general prohibition, or relieve an individual or
corporation from an affirmative duty
3. Examininginvestigatory powerconsists in requiring production of books,
papers, etc.
4. Summarypower to apply compulsion or force against persons or property to
effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such action
Quasi-Judicial or Adjudicatory Power
The administrative agency is acting as a court of justice, conducting hearings and
rendering decisions. The proceedings partakes the character of judicial proceedings
Sec. 1(1), Article VIIIThe judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in
such lower courts as may be established by law. outside of this, they refer to the
administrative agency performing quasi-judicial functions.
Requisites for a valid exercise of Quasi-Judicial Function of
Administrative Agency
1. Conferment of jurisdictionjurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or
law; it cannot be implied, cannot be waived, it cannot be left to the will of the people.
The power to promulgate rules of procedure
Once vested with quasi-judicial power, by virtue of the DOCTRINE OF

NECESSARY IMPLICATION, it provides the power to promulgate the rules of

procedure. The rules of procedure are subject to the review power of the SC.
[Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII]: Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform
for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasijudicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
In Cario vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483, the power to investigate is different from the
power to adjudicate. The court has observed that it is only the first of the enumerated
powers and functions that bears any resemblance to adjudication, but that resemblance
can in no way be synonymous to the adjudicatory power itself.
Power to investigate
Receiving evidence and make findings of

Power to adjudicate
The faculty of receiving evidence and

fact in a controversy (in the case of CHR,

make factual conclusions in a controversy

claimed human rights violations involving

accompanied by the authority of applying

civil and political rights)

the law to those factual conclusions to the

end that the controversy may be decided
or determined authoritatively, finally and
definitely, subject to appeals or modes of
review as may be provided by law.

2. Observance of Administrative Due Processmandatory. The requisites of

administrative due process, as enumerated in Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 40 O.G. 7th
Supp. 128 are:
7 Cardinal/Primary Rights in ADP:
There must be a hearing;
The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
Decision must have something to support itself;
The evidence must be substantialquantum of evidence;
The decision must be based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties;
f. The Board or its judges must act on its or their independent consideration
of the facts and the law of the case, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
g. The decision must be rendered in such a manner that the parties to the
controversy can know the various issues involved and the reason for the
decision rendered.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Montemayor vs. Araneta University Foundation (1977)Montemayor

was a full-time professor. Charged with immoral advances, he was investigated with the
assistance of counsel, and dismissed in accordance with the Manual of policies of the
University. On appeal to the NLRC, he was ordered reinstated. The SC held that his
removal was with due process. There was no violation of due process in the labor
proceeding but it did not preclude Montemayor from suing the University for damages.
In Lumiqued vs. Exevea, G.R. No. 117565, November 18, 1997, the
CAR
Regional Director was charged administratively. He was asked several times if he would
like to be assisted by counsel but he refused alleging that he can handle his case as he
was from UP. After he was found guilty, he died. The heirs now claimed that the entire
proceeding was null and void. They alleged that Lumiqued was not properly assisted by
counsel. It is the right of the accused to be assisted by counsel. The SC held that the
right of the accused that was being alleged by the heirs is a right of the accused during
custodial investigation which is part of a criminal proceeding. This is not a criminal
proceeding. Administrative due process does not necessarily require the assistance of
counsel. A party in an administrative proceeding has the option of engaging a counsel
or not. He may or may not be assisted by counsel. In this case, the Regional Director
was even asked if he would like to be assisted by counsel but he refused to. The right to
counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or the
law.
In Gonzales vs. NLRC and Ateneo de Davao University, G.R. No.
125735, August 26, 1999, the SC held that there was a violation of administrative
due process where the teacher was dismissed by the university without having been
given full opportunity to confront the witnesses against her.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of (Dela Cruz vs. Abille, G.R. No. 130196, February 26,
2001), or an opportunity to explain ones side (Pilipinas Loan Company vs.
SEC, G.R. No. 104720, April 4, 2001).
In administrative proceedings, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to
explain ones side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. To be heard does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may
also be heard through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral
arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process
(Casimiro vs. Tandog, G.R. No. 146137, June 8, 2005).
CSC vs. CA, G.R. No. 161086, November 24, 2006, in administrative
proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so
charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of
due process. As long as a party was given opportunity to defend his interests in due
course, he was not denied due process.

Power of Contemptjudicial; inherent power of the court. It must be used on the

preservative not on the vindictive principle. An administrative body may exercise the
power of contempt if expressly granted/vested by law to the administrative agency. The
doctrine of necessary implication cannot be applied here.
In Guevarra vs. COMELEC, 104 Phil. 268, the power to punish contempt must
be expressly granted to the administrative body; and when so granted, may be
exercised only when the administrative body is actually performing quasi-judicial
functions.
In Simon, Jr. vs. CHR, 229 SCRA 117, the CHR is constitutionally authorized to
adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the CHR acted
within its authority in providing in its revised rules, its power to cite or hold any person in
direct or indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with
the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court. That power to cite for
contempt, however, should be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted
operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial
powers. To exemplify, the power to cite for contempt could be exercised against persons
who refuse to cooperate with the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant information,
or who decline to honor summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative work. The
order to desist (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) is not investigatorial in
character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess.
In this case, the power of contempt arose from an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction.
It is not valid. There is grave abuse of discretion to both issues.
Administrative determinations where notice and hearing are not
necessary for due process:
1. Grant of provisional authority for increased rates, or to engage in a
particular line of business
2. Summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon the property of a
delinquent taxpayer
3. Cancellation of a passport where no abuse of discretion is committed by
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
4. Summary abatement of a nuisance per se which affects the immediate
safety of persons or property
5. Preventive suspension of a public officer or employee pending
investigation of administrative charges filed against him
In PBC vs. CIR, G.R. No. 112024, January 28, 1999, Article 8 of the Civil
Code recognizes judicial decisions applying or interpreting statutes as part of the legal
system of the country. But administrative decisions do not enjoy that level of recognition.
A memorandum-circular of a bureau head could not operate to vest a taxpayer with a
shield against judicial action. For there are no vested rights to speak of respecting a
wrong construction of the law by administrative officials and such wrong interpretation
could not place the Government in estoppel to correct or overrule the same.

Administrative Appeal and Review

a. Where provided by law, appeal from an administrative determination may be
made to a higher or superior administrative officer or body.
b. By virtue of the power of control by which the President exercises over all
executive departments, the Presidentby himselfor through the Department
Secretaries (pursuant to the Alter-Ego Doctrine), may affirm, modify, alter, or
reverse the administrative decision of subordinate officials and employees.
(Araneta vs. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328).
c. The appellate administrative agency may conduct additional hearings in he
appealed case, if deemed necessary. (Reyes vs. Zamora, 90 SCRA 92).
Doctrine of Res Judicata
It does not apply to administrative decisions.
It forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent authority acting
within their exclusive jurisdiction. (Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary,
190 SCRA 673)
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction (or Prior Resort)
Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience
and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of
fact.
In recent years, it has been applied to matters that demand the special competence of
administrative agencies even if the question involved is also judicial in character. It
applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play
whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of
such issues to the administrative body for its view.
In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot
arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is
lodged with an administrative body of special competence. (Villaflor vs. CA, 280
SCRA 287)
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that
he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him.
Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving
the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes
within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before the courts
judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of courts jurisdiction is fatal to
ones cause of action.

Sec. 187, LGCexpressly provides that administrative remedies must be exhausted

first before the constitutionality or legality of a tax ordinance may be challenged in court.
In Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PhilCoA, G.R. No. 110526,
February 10, 1998, only decisions of administrative agencies made in the exercise
of quasi-judicial powers are subject to the rules of exhaustion of administrative
remedies. In like manner, the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction applies only
where the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory powers.
Thus, where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation
issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function,
the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same (Smart
Communications vs. NTC, G.R. No. 151908, August 12, 2003).
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
(Prior
Resort
Lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived;

Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies

jurisdiction is conferred by law

premature resort to the courts necessarily

Lack of Cause of action; waivable;

becomes fatal to the COA.

General rule: Exhaustion of administrative remedies must first be made before

resorting to court actions. Failure to exhaust will not affect the jurisdiction of the court
but the complainant is deprived of a COA which is a ground for a motion to dismiss.
However, if no motion to dismiss is filed on this ground, there is deemed to be a waiver.
Exceptions:
1. If the issue involves a pure question of lawuseless to exhaust. Only the courts
can declare with finality what are purely legal question.
In Castro vs. Secretary Gloria, G.R. No. 132174, August
20, 2001, the SC said that there is a question of law when the doubts or
differences arise as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. There is
question of fact when the doubts or differences arise as to the truth or
falsity of alleged facts.
2. If the law does not provide for an administrative remedyjust go to the regular
courts. In Estuerte vs. CA, 193 SCRA 541, the SC said that in a civil
action for damages, the courts concern is whether or not damages, personal to
the plaintiff, were caused by the acts of the defendants; it can proceed
independently of the administrative action. Accordingly, the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedy does not apply.
3. Doctrine of Qualified Political AgencyALTER EGO DOCTRINE. In Nazareno
vs. CA, 267 SCRA 589, the SC held that when the Undersecretary of DENR
denied the motion for reconsideration, he was acting on behalf of the Secretary
of DENR; accordingly, administrative remedies had been exhausted.
4. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction.

 In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438, the inaction of

the PCGG on the motion filed by the respondent and co-respondent [it
took 7 years before the PCGG filed its motion to dismiss based on failure
to exhaust administrative remedies] gave rise to unreasonable delay.
5. The administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
In Cabada vs. Alunan, 260 SCRA 838, the SC said that the
Commissioner of the NAPOLCOM who denied petitioners appeal to the
Secretary of DILG acted in a patently illegal manner, because only the
Secretary of DILG could act on the appeal and the NAPOLCOM, being a
collegial body, cannot be bound by the act of an individual Commissioner.
6. When there is irreparable injury or threat thereof, unless judicial recourse is
immediately made.
7. When it would amount to a nullification of the claim.
8. When the subject matter is a private land in land case proceeding.
9. When there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
10. When due process of law is clearly violated.
11. When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned.
In Vda de Tan vs. Veterans Backpay Commission, 105 Phil. 377,
petitioner, as widow of a Chinese guerilla veteran who rendered military service during
the Japanese occupation, filed an application for back pay before the Veterans Back
Pay Commissions. xxx The respondent Commission is in estoppel considering that in its
resolution: The opinions promulgated by the Secretary of Justice are advisory
in nature, which may either be accepted or ignored by the office seeking the
opinion, and any aggrieved party has the court for recourse xxx. thereby
leading the petitioner to conclude that only final judicial ruling in her favor would be
accepted by the Commission.
Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional. It only renders the action
premature, i.e., claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial determination and for that
reason a party has no cause of action to ventilate in court. (Carale vs. Abarintos,
269 SCRA 132)
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound policy and practical considerations, are
not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions such as unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant and when the question
involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice.
(RP ETC vs. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007)
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions; When Made:
1. To determine constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive
order or regulation;
2. To determine jurisdiction of any administrative board, commission or officer;
3. To determine any other questions of facts when necessary to determine either:
a. Constitutional or jurisdictional issue;

b. Commission of abuse of authority; and

c. When administrative fact-finding body is unduly restricted by an error of
law.
4. To determine any other questions of law.
General Rule: Findings of facts of administrative agencies accorded great weight by
the courts.
Exceptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Factual finding is not supported by evidence;

Findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or collusion;
Procedure which led to factual findings is irregular;
Palpable errors are committed;
Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest.

NHA vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 158364, November 28, 2007, the decisions
and orders of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial
authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within
the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.
BRANDEIS DOCTRINE OF ASSIMILATION OF FACTSwhere what purports to
be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a question
of law as to be in substance and effect decision on the latter, the Court will, in order to
decide the legal question, examine the entire record including the evidence if necessary.