GALANZA, FRANCES ANN I.

2014-0241
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | based on the Outline Reviewer in Political Law of Justice
Antonio Nachura
_____________________________________________________________________________
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. Administrative Law.
That branch of public law which fixes the
organization and determines the competence of
administrative authorities and indicates to the
individual remedies for the violation of his rights.

Kinds:
a) Statutes setting up administrative authorities.
b) Rules, regulations or orders of such
administrative authorities promulgated pursuant to
the purposes for which they were created.
c) Determinations, decisions and orders of such
administrative authorities made in the settlement
of controversies arising in their particular fields.
d) Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the
creation, operation and effect of determinations
and regulations of such administrative authorities.
Administration.
Meaning. Understood in two different senses:
i) As a function - the execution, in nonjudicial matters, of the law or will of the
State as expressed by competent authority.
ii) As an organization: that group or
aggregate of persons in whose hands the
reins of government are for the time being.
Distinguished from government
Kinds:
i)
Internal:
legal
side
of
public
administration, e.g., matters concerning personnel,
fiscal and planning activities.
ii) External: deals with problems of
government regulations, e.g., regulation of lawful
calling or profession, industries or businesses.
B. Administrative Bodies or Agencies
Defined
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.
Creation
They are created either by:
a) Constitutional provision;
b) Legislative enactment; or
c) Authority of law
Criterion
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

enforcement of the law.

details

for

the

Types:
a) Bodies set up to function in situations
where the government is offering some
gratuity, grant or special privilege, e.g.,
Bureau of Lands.
b) Bodies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is seeking to carry
on certain of the actual business of
government, e.g., BIR.
c) Bodies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is performing
some business service for the public, e.g.,
MWSS.
d) Bodies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is seeking to
regulate business affected with public
interest, e.g., LTFRB.
e) Bodies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is seeking under
the police power to regulate private
business and individuals, e.g., SEC.
f) Bodies set up to function in situations
wherein the government is seeking to
adjust individual controversies because of
a strong social policy involved, e.g., ECC.
g) Bodies set up to make the government a
private party, e.g., GSIS.
II. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
A. Powers of Administrative Bodies.
1. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power;
2. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power; and
3. Determinative powers
B. Quasi-legislative power.
Nature
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
CASE : Holy Spirit Homeowners Association v.
Secretary Defensor, G.R. No. 163980, August
3, 2006 - the Supreme Court said that quasilegislative power is the power to make rules
and regulations which results in delegated
legislation that is within the confines of the
granting statute and the doctrine of nondelegability and separation of powers.
a) Rules and regulations 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.

GALANZA, FRANCES ANN I.

2014-0241
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | based on the Outline Reviewer in Political Law of Justice
Antonio Nachura
_____________________________________________________________________________
b) Both Letters of Instruction and Executive Orders
are presidential issuances
- one may repeal or otherwise alter, modify or
amend the other, depending on which comes later
[Philippine Association of Service Exporters
v.
Torres, 225 SCRA 417].
c) It may be stressed that the function of
promulgating rules and regulations may be
legitimately exercised only for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of the law into effect.
- administrative regulations 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 v. Court
of Appeals, 249 SCRA 149].
-Indeed, administrative issuances must not
override, but must remain consistent with the law
they seek to apply and implement. They are
intended to carry out, not to supplant nor to
modify, the law [Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 368].
d) It is axiomatic that an administrative agency like
the Philippine Ports Authority has no discretion
whether or not to implement a law. Its duty is to
enforce the law. Thus, if there is a conflict between
PPA circulars and a law like EO 1088, the latter
prevails [Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of
Appeals
G. R. No. 116356, June 29, 1998].
e) An administrative order is an ordinance issued
by the President which relates to specific aspects in
the administrative operation of Government.
- It cannot be argued that Administrative Order No.
308
(prescribing
a
National
Computerized
Identification
Reference
System)
merely
implements the Administrative Code of 1987. Such
a national computerized identification reference
system requires a delicate adjustment of various
contending State policies, the primacy of national
security,
the
extent
of
privacy
against
dossiergathering by the Government, and the
choice of policies. It deals with a subject which
should be covered by a law, not just an
administrative order [Ople v. Torres, 293 SCR A
141].
2.
Kinds
of
Administrative
Rules
or
Regulations
a) Supplementary or detailed legislation
- They are rules and regulations to fix the details
in the execution and enforcement of a policy set
out in the law,
e.g., Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
Code.

Interpretative legislation
- They are rules and regulations construing or
interpreting the provisions of a statute to be
enforced and they are binding on all
concerned until they are changed, e.g., BIR
Circulars, CB circulars, etc.. They have the effect of
law and are entitled to great respect; they have in
their favor the presumption of legality [Gonzalez
v. Land Bank, 183 SCRA 520].
c) Contingent legislation
- They are rules and regulations made by an
administrative authority on the existence of certain
facts or things upon which the enforcement of the
law depends
3. Requisites for validity:
a) Issued under authority of law.
b) Within the scope and purview of the law.
i) The power of administrative officials to
promulgate rules in the 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.
- administrative bodies are allowed, under
their power of subordinate legislation, to
implement the broad policies laid down in the
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
[Public
Schools
District
Supervisors
Association v. Hon. Edilberto de Jesus, G.R.
No. 157299, June 19, 2006].
ii) In Land Bank v. Court of Appeals,
249 SCRA 149, the Court nullified DAR Adm.
Circular No. 9, which allowed the opening of a trust
account
in behalf
of
the landowner as
compensation for the property taken, because Sec.
16 (e), R.A. 6657, is specific that the deposit must
be made in cash or in Land Bank bonds. The
implementing regulation cannot outweigh the clear
provision of the
law. See also Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co. v.
Drilon, 176 SCRA 24.
iii) the Supreme Court ruled that the HDMF
cannot, in the exercise of its rule-making power,
issue a regulation not consistent with the law it
seeks to enforce and administer. Administrative
issuances must not override, supplant or modify
the law. Romulo, Mabanta Law Office v. Home
Development Mutual Fund, G.R. No. 131082,
June 19, 2000,
iv) Where the regulatory system has been
set up by law, it is beyond the power of an

GALANZA, FRANCES ANN I.

2014-0241
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | based on the Outline Reviewer in Political Law of Justice
Antonio Nachura
_____________________________________________________________________________
administrative agency to dismantle it. Any change
in policy must be made by the legislative
department [Association of Philippine Coconut
Desiccators v. Philippine Coconut Authority,
G.R. No. 110526, February 10, 1998].

c) Reasonable
d) Publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation, as provided in
Executive Order No. 200.
- interpretative rules and regulations, or those
merely internal in nature, or the so-called letters of
instruction Issued by administrative superiors
concerning the rules and guidelines to be followed
by their subordinates in the performance of their
duties, may be simply posted in conspicuous
places in the agency itself.
- Such posting already complies with the
publication requirement. Publication must be in full,
or it is no
publication at all [Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA
446],

temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary

attachment issued by the court, which are given ex
parte, and which are subject to the resolution of
the main case.
6. A petition for prohibition is not the proper
remedy to assail
- Implementing Rules and Regulations issued in
the exercise of quasi-legislative functions.
- Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed
against any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial
functions, ordering said entity or person to desist
from
further
proceedings
when
the
said
proceedings are without or in excess of jurisdiction,
or is accompanied by grave abuse of discretion,
and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy
or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Thus, prohibition lies against the exercise of
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, not
against legislative or quasi-legislative functions
[Holy Spirit Homeowners Association v.
Secretary Defensor, G.R. No. 163980, August
3, 2006],
C. Determinative Powers

4. Administrative rules with penal sanctions;

additional requisites:
a) The law must itself declare as
punishable
the
violation
of
the
administrative rule or regulation.
b) The law should define or fix the penalty
for the violation of the administrative rule
or regulation.
5. Necessity for notice and hearing.
a) There is no constitutional requirement for a
hearing in the promulgation of a general regulation
by an administrative body. Where the rule is
procedural, or where the rules are, in effect, merely
legal opinions, there is no notice required.
- Neither is notice required in the preparation of
substantive rules where the class to be affected is
large and the questions to be resolved involve the
use of discretion committed to the rule-making
body. In Corona v. United Harbor Pilots
Association of the Philippines, G.R. No.
111953, December 12, 1997, the
Supreme Court reiterated the rule that a prior
hearing is not necessary for the issuance of an
administrative rule or regulation.
CASE : Maceda v. Energy Regulatory Board,
192 SCRA 363, the Supreme Court declared that
while under Executive Order No. 172, a hearing is
Indispensable, it does not preclude the Board from
ordering, ex parte, a provisional increase subject to
its final disposition of whether or not to make it
permanent, to reduce or increase it further, or to
deny the application. Sec. 3 (e) is akin to a

1.

Enabling
- to permit or allow something which the
law undertakes to regulate, e.g., grant or
denial of licenses to engage in a particular
business.

2.

Directing
- illustrated by the power of assessment of
the BIR or the Bureau of Customs.

3. Dispensing
to exempt from a general prohibition, or
relieve an individual or corporation from an
affirmative duty, e.g., authority of zoning
boards to vary provisions of zoning ordinances,
or the authority of the
4. Examining
also called the investigatory power; consists in
requiring production of books, papers, etc., the
attendance of witnesses and compelling their
testimony.
a) Power to compel attendance of
witnesses not inherent in administrative
body; but an administrative officer
authorized to take testimony or evidence is
deemed authorized to administer oath,
summon witnesses, require production of
documents, etc.
b) Power to punish contempt must be
expressly granted to the administrative

GALANZA, FRANCES ANN I.

2014-0241
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | based on the Outline Reviewer in Political Law of Justice
Antonio Nachura
_____________________________________________________________________________
body; and when so granted, may be
exercised only when administrative body is
actually performing quasi-judicial functions

5.

Summary
- power to apply compulsion or force
against persons or property to effectuate a
legal purpose without a judicial warrant to
authorize such action, e.g., in the fields of
health
inspections,
abatement
of
nuisances, etc.

D. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power.

1. Proceedings partake of the character of judicial
proceedings.
-

Administrative body is normally granted the

authority to promulgate its own rules of
procedure, provided they do not increase,
diminish or modify substantive rights, and
subject to disapproval by the Supreme Court
[Sec. 5(5), Art VIII, Constitution],
The requisites of procedural due process must
be complied with.

2. Administrative due process

a) The requisites of administrative due process, as
enumerated in AngTibay v. CIR, 40 O.G. 7th
Supp. 129 are:
i) Right to a hearing;
ii) Tribunal must consider evidence
presented;
iii) Decision must have something to
support itself;
iv) Evidence must be substantial;
v) Decision must be based on the evidence
adduced at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to
the parties;
vi) 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.
vii) Decision must be rendered in such a
manner that the parties to the controversy
can know the various issues involved and
the reasons for the decision rendered.
3. Administrative determinations where notice and
hearing are not necessary for due process.
a) Grant of provisional authority for increased
rates, or to engage in a particular line of business
[RCPI v. National Telecommunications Commission,
184
SCRA
517;
PLDT
v.
National
Telecommunications Commission, 190 SCRA 717].
b) Summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon
the property of a delinquent taxpayer.

4. Right against self-incrimination.

a) Cabal v. Kapunan, 6 SCRA 1064, it was held that
since the administrative charge of unexplained
wealth against the respondent therein may result
in the forfeiture of the property under R.A. 3019,
the complainant cannot call the respondent to the
witness stand without encroaching on his right
against self-incrimination.
- Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28
SCRA 345 - the same rule was followed in
administrative proceedings against a medical
practitioner where the proceedings could possibly
result in the loss of his privilege to practice
medicine.
b) This right may be invoked by the respondent at
the time he is called by the complainant as a
witness; however, if he voluntarily takes the
witness stand, he can be cross-examined; but he
may still invoke the right at the time the question
which calls for an answer which incriminates him of
an offense other than that which is charged is
asked. See People v. Judge Ayson, supra.
5. Power to punish contempt is inherently
judicial
- may be exercised only if expressly conferred by
law, and when administrative body is engaged in
the
performance of its quasi-judicial powers.
6. Administrative decisions not part of the
legal system
- Art. 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 the administrative officials and such wrong
interpretation could not place the Government in
estoppel to correct or overrule the same
[Philippine Bank of Communications v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
112024, January 28, 1999],
7. 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 which the
President exercises over all executive departments,
the President by himself or through the
Department Secretaries (pursuant to the alter
ego doctrine), may affirm, modify, alter, or reverse
the administrative decision of subordinate officials
and

GALANZA, FRANCES ANN I.

2014-0241
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | based on the Outline Reviewer in Political Law of Justice
Antonio Nachura
_____________________________________________________________________________
employees.

c) The appellate administrative agency may

conduct additional hearings in the appealed case, if
deemed necessary
8. Doctrine of res judicata.
- Ysmael v. Deputy Executive Secretary, 190 SCRA
673 - the Supreme Court said that decisions and
orders of administrative agencies have upon their
finality, the force and binding effect of a final
judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res
judicata. These decisions and orders are as
conclusive upon the rights of the affected parties
as though the same had been rendered by a court
of general jurisdiction.
- The rule of res judicata thus forbids the reopening
of a matter once determined by competent
authority acting within their exclusive jurisdiction.
See also Boiser v. National Telecommunications
Commission, 169 SCRA 198; Nasipit Lumber v.
NLRC, 177 SCRA 93; United Housing v. Dayrit, 181
SCRA 285; National Housing Authority v. Pascual,
G.R. No. 158364, November 26, 2007..
III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES
A. The doctrine.
- Whenever there is an available administrative
remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse
can be made until all such remedies have been
availed of and exhausted. See Aquino v.
Mariano,
129
SCRA
532;
National
Development
Company v. Hervilla, 151 SCRA 200; Union
Bank v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 198.
1. Reasons.
a) If relief is first sought from a superior
administrative agency, resort to the courts may be
unnecessary.
b) The administrative agency should be given a
chance to correct its error.
c) Principles of comity and convenience require
that the courts stay their hand until the
administrative processes are completed.
d) Since judicial review of administrative decisions
is usually made through special civil actions, such
proceedings will not normally prosper if there is
another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law
3. only those decisions of administrative agencies
made in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers are
subject to the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies [Association of Philippine Coconut
Desiccators v. Philippine Coconut Authority, G.R.
No. 110526, February 10, 1998]

In like manner, the doctrine of primary

administrative jurisdiction applies only where the
administrative agency exercises its 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 v. National
Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 151908,
August 12, 2003].
B. Corollary Principles:
1. Doctrine of Prior Resort, also known as the
doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction:
- Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested
upon an administrative body to act upon a matter,
no resort to the courts may be made before such
administrative body shall have acted upon the
matter.
Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 184 SCRA 426 - it was held that
inasmuch as the memorandum of agreement
between IEI and MMIC was derived from the coaloperating contract and intrinsically tied up with the
right to develop coal-bearing lands, lEIs cause of
action was not merely rescission of contract but
the reversion of the operation of the coal blocks.
Accordingly, the case should have been filed with
the Board of Energy Development, not with the
Regional Trial Court.
2. Doctrine of finality of administrative action
- No resort to the courts will be allowed unless the
administrative action has been completed and
there is nothing left to be done in the
administrative structure.
- Because the petitioner did not take an appeal
from the order of the Director, Bureau of Labor
Relations, to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment,
but went directly to court, it was held that the court
action was made prematurely and the petitioner
failed to exhaust administrative remedies [SSS
Employees Association v. Bathan-Velasco,
G.R. No. 108765, August 27, 1999]
a) A party aggrieved must not merely initiate the
prescribed administrative procedure to obtain
relief, but must also pursue it to its appropriate
conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in
order to give that administrative agency an
opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly
and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to
the courts [Zabat v. Court of Appeals, 338
SCRA 551],
C. Effect of failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. The jurisdiction of the court is not
affected; but the complainant is deprived of a
cause of action which is a ground for a motion to

GALANZA, FRANCES ANN I.

2014-0241
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | based on the Outline Reviewer in Political Law of Justice
Antonio Nachura
_____________________________________________________________________________
dismiss. However, if no motion to dismiss is filed on
this ground, there is deemed to be a waiver.

D. Exceptions to the doctrine:

1. Doctrine of qualified political agency (alter
ego doctrine)
Bayan, etc. v. Dominguez, 205 SCRA 92. In
Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA
589, the Supreme Court held that when the
Undersecretary of Natural Resources denied the
motion for reconsideration, he was acting on behalf
of the Secretary of Natural Resources; accordingly,
administrative remedies had been exhausted.
a) Except where the law expressly provides
for exhaustion.
b) In Calo v. Fuertes, 5 SCRA 399 - where
appeal had already been made to the
President and, before the President could
act on the appeal, the same was
withdrawn, there was deemed to have
been failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Besides, by appealing to the
President, the party recognized a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy still open to
him in the ordinary course of law and
thus, his special civil action must fail.
- However, where the appeal to the Office
of the President had not been acted upon
(and despite followups for two months, no
reply was received by the petitioner), and
in the meantime, the Philippine Coconut
Authority, pursuant to the assailed
resolution, was issuing certificates of
registration indiscriminately, the Supreme
Court held that the Association of
Philippine
Coconut
Desiccators
was
justified in filing the case in court
[Association of Philippine Coconut
Desiccators v. Philippine Coconut
Authority, 286 SCRA 109].
c) In Samahang Magbubukid ng
Kapdula, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 103953, March 25, 1999, it was
held that the decisions of the DAR
Secretary cannot be questioned before the
DARAB.
Exhaustion of
administrative
remedies is improper in this case, because
Sec. 54 of R.A. 6657 specifically provides
that decisions and awards of the DAR shall
be brought up to the Court of Appeals by
certiorari.
2. Where
e.g., suit
instituted
otherwise

the administrative remedy is fruitless,

for recovery of title to office must be
within one year from illegal ouster,
the action prescribes.

3. Where there is estoppel on the part of the

administrative agency [Vda. De Tanv. Veterans
Backpay Commission, 105 Phil 377].

4. Where the issue involved is purely a legal

question [Palma- Fernandez v. De la Paz, 160
SCRA 751; Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA,
supra.; Samson v. NLRC, 253 SCRA 112].
-

Castro v. Secretary Gloria, G.R. No.

132174,August 20, 2001 - the Supreme
Court 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 a question of fact when the doubts or
differences arise as to the truth or falsity of
alleged facts.

a) In Castro, the petitioner was not disputing the

administrative finding of guilt, but the correctness
of the penalty imposed. He claimed that the proper
penalty for the first offense of immoral or
disgraceful conduct is only suspension, not
dismissal from the service. Understandably, the
issue is a pure question of law.
b) Ty v. Trampe, 250 SCRA 500 - it was held that
there was no necessity to appeal to the Board of
Assessment Appeals, considering that the parties
agreed that the issues in the petition were purely
legal, and thus, no evidence was presented in the
lower court.
6. Where the administrative action is patently
illegal, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
[Industrial Power Sales v. Sinsuat, supra.].
- Cabada v. Alunan, 260 SCRA 838, the
Supreme Court said that the Commissioner
of the National Police Commission who
denied petitioners appeal to the Secretary
of Interior and Local Government acted in a
patently illegal manner, because only the
Secretary of DILG could act on the appeal
and that the National Police Commission,
being a collegial body, cannot be bound by
the act of an individual Commissioner. 6
7. Where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction.
8.
Where there is irreparable injury or threat
thereof, unless judicial recourse is immediately
made [De Lara v. Cloribel, 14 SCRA 269]. In
National Food Authority
v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 470, because
the contracts of the security agencies had already
been terminated and their replacements were
hired, appeal to the Board of Trustees of the
National Food Authority and to the Secretary of
Agriculture was not a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the course of law.
The respondents had to go to court to stop the
implementation of the newcontracts.

GALANZA, FRANCES ANN I.

2014-0241
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | based on the Outline Reviewer in Political Law of Justice
Antonio Nachura
_____________________________________________________________________________
8. In land cases, where the subject matter is
private land [Soto v. Jareno, supra.].

final and irreviewable. In such a case, there

is no violation of due process.

9. Where the law does not make exhaustion a

condition precedent to judicial recourse.

1. However, Sec. 1, par. 2, Art. VIII,

Philippine Constitution, which provides that the
judicial power includes the power of the courts of
justice to determine whether or not there has been
a grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any agency or
instrumentality of government, clearly means that
judicial review of administrative decisions cannot
be denied the courts when there is an allegation of
grave abuse of discretion.

10. Where observance of the doctrine will result in

the nullification of the claim.
11. Where there are special reasons or
circumstances demanding immediate court action.
12. When due process of law is clearly violated
13. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy [Quisumbing v. Judge
Gumban, 193 SCRA 520]. In Estuerte v. Court
of Appeals, 193 SCRA 541, the Supreme Court
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 remedies does not apply.
- Paat v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167, enumerated the instances when the rule on
exhaustion may be disregarded, as follows:
[1] When there is violation of due process;
[2] when the issue involved is purely a legal
question;
[3] When the administrative action is patently
illegal
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
[4] When there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency concerned;
[5] When there is irreparable injury;
[6] When the respondent is a Department
Secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the
President, bears the implied and presumed
approval of the latter;
[7] When to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be unreasonable;
[8] When it would amount to a nullification of the
claim;
[9] When the subject matter is a private land in
land case proceedings;
[10] When the rule does not provide a plain,
speedy or adequate remedy; and
[11] When there are circumstances indicating the
urgency of judicial intervention.
IV. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS
A. Rule:
- Except when the Constitution requires or
allows it, judicial review may be granted or
withheld as Congress chooses. Thus, the
law may provide that a determination
made by an administrative agency shall be

B. Bases for Judicial Review:

1. The Constitution. For instance, Sec. 7, Art. IX-A,
Constitution, provides: x x x Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a
copy thereof.
2. Statutes.
3. General principles of law.
C. Methods of obtaining Judicial
Classes:
1. Statutory or non-statutory
a) Statutory - available
statutory provisions.

pursuant

to

Review:

specific

b) Non-statutory - where there is no express

statute granting review, relief is obtained by means
of the common law remedies, or by the prerogative
writs of certiorari, mandamus, habeas corpus, quo
warranto or prohibition.
[NOTE: If statutory methods for judicial review are
available, they are ordinarily
exclusive, and the use of non-statutory methods
will not likely be permitted.]
2. Direct or collateral:
a) Direct - attempt to question in subsequent
proceedings the administrative action for lack of
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, etc..
b) Collateral - relief from administrative action
sought in a proceeding the primary purpose of
which is some relief other than the setting aside of
the judgment, although an attack on the judgment
may be incidentally involved, e.g., a damage suit
against the administrative officials.
D. What court has jurisdiction.
1. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that the Court of Appeals shall have
appellate jurisdiction over judgments or final orders
of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards,
judgments, final orders or resolutions of or

GALANZA, FRANCES ANN I.

2014-0241
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | based on the Outline Reviewer in Political Law of Justice
Antonio Nachura
_____________________________________________________________________________
authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.

2. Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan

Electric Power & Light, G.R. No. 127371, April
25, 2002 - the Supreme Court noted that Sec. 10
of Executive Order No. 172 (the law creating the
Energy Regulatory Board) provides that a review of
ERBs decisions or orders is lodged in the Supreme
Court (now in the Court of Appeals). The Court then
reiterated the rule that where the law provides for
an appeal from the decisions of administrative
bodies to the Supreme Court or to the Court of
Appeals, it means that such bodies are co-equal
with the Regional Trial Courts in terms of rank and
stature, and logically, beyond the control of the
latter. It bears stressing that this.doctrine of
noninterference by trial courts with co-equal
administrative bodies is intended to ensure judicial
stability in the administration of justice whereby
the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction
may not be opened, modified or vacated by any
court of concurrent jurisdiction.
3. Board of Commissioners, CID v. Judge de la
Rosa, supra - the Supreme Court ruled that there
is nothing in the law creating the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation [now Bureau of
Immigration] which provides that its decisions may
be reviewed only by the Court of Appeals;
accordingly, review by
the RTC was upheld
E. Questions which may be subject of judicial
review:
1. Questions of Law.
2. Questions of Fact. Factual findings of
administrative agencies are generally conclusive
upon the courts if supported by substantial
evidence; thus, Courts are precluded from
reviewing questions of fact, except:
a) When expressly allowed by statute;
b) Fraud, imposition or mistake other than
error of judgment in evaluating the
evidence
[Ortua
v.
Singson
Encarnacion, 59 Phil 440]; or
c) Error in appreciation of the pleadings
and
in
the
interpretation
of
the
documentary evidence presented by the
parties [Tan Tiang Teek v. Commission,
40 O.G., 6th Supp. 125].
3. Mixed Questions of Law and Fact
[Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts]:

- Where 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 a decision on the latter, the Court will, in
order to decide the legal question, examine the
entire record including the evidence if necessary.
F. Guidelines for the exercise of the power.
1. Findings of fact are respected as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence, even if not
overwhelming or preponderant.
a) Findings of administrative officials and
agencies who have acquired expertise
because their jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters are generally accorded not
only respect but at times even finality if
such findings are supported by substantial
evidence [Biak-na-Bato Mining v. Tanco,
193 SCRA 323; Nuesa v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 132048, March 06, 2002].
b) However, the principle that factual
findings of administrative bodies are
binding upon the Court may be sustained
only when no issue of credibility is raised.
Thus, when the factual findings of the NLRC
do not agree with those of the Labor
Arbiter, the Court must, of necessity,
review the records to determine which
findings should be preferred as more
conformable to the evidentiary facts
[Arboleda v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119509,
February 11, 1999].
2. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the
conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of
witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for
that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency
of evidence.
- The Court recognizes that the trial court or the
administrative body, as the trier of facts, is in a
better position to assess the demeanor of the
witnesses and the credibility of their testimonies as
they were within its proximal view during the
hearing or investigation [Mollaneda v. Umacob,
G.R. No. 140128, June 6, 2001].
3. The administrative decision in matters within the
executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on
proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, collusion
or error of law.
G. Judicial Review is not trial de novo:
- It is merely an ascertainment of whether the
findings of the administrative agency are
consistent with law, free from fraud or imposition,
and supported by evidence.