VICTORIA MILLING vs.
SSS The CHR has the power to investigate but not to adjudicate
There is a distinction between an administrative rule or
regulation and an administrative interpretation of a law whose
enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body. When an
administrative agency promulgates rules and
regulations, it "makes" a new law with the force and
effect of a valid law, while when it renders an opinion
or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets a
pre-existing law. Rules and regulations when
promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority
conferred upon the administrative agency by law,
partake of the nature of a statute, and compliance
therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction
provided in the law. A rule is binding on the courts so long
as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its
scope is within the statutory authority granted by the
legislature, On the other hand, administrative interpretation
of the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that
finally determine what the law means.
NFA VS. MASADA Security
The general rule is that construction of a statute by an
administrative agency charged with the task of interpreting or
applying the same is entitled to great weight and respect. The
Court, however, is not bound to apply said rule where such
executive interpretation, is clearly erroneous, or when
there is no ambiguity in the law interpreted, or when the
language of the words used is clear and plain, as in the case
at bar. Besides, administrative interpretations are at best
advisory for it is the Court that finally determines what the
law means. Hence, the interpretation given by the labor
agencies in the instant case which went as far as
supplementing what is otherwise not stated in the law cannot
bind this Court.
SGMC REALTY CORP. vs. Office of the President
Administrative rule or regulation, in order to be valid,
must not contradict but conform to the provisions of
the enabling law.
For it is axiomatic that administrative rules derive their
validity from the statute that they are intended to implement.
Any rule which is not consistent with statute itself is null and
void.
Prospective or retroactive operation
CIR VS. AZUCENA
An administrative rule interpretive of a statute, and not
declarative of certain rights and corresponding
obligations, is given retroactive effect as of the date of
the effectivity of the statute.
DADULO vs. CA
Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to
be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the
time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that
sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive
application of procedural laws cannot be considered violative
of any personal rights because no vested right may attach to
nor arise therefrom.
SAN MIGUEL VS. INCIONG
The Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing
Presidential Decree 851 is even more emphatic in declaring
that earnings and other remunerations which are not part of
the basic salary shall not be included in the computation of
the 13th-month pay.
ASTURIAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM
Considering that the Bureau of Customs is the office charged
with implementing and enforcing the provisions of our Tariff
and Customs Code, the construction placed by it thereon
should be given controlling weight.
In applying the doctrine or principle of respect for
administrative or practical construction, the courts often
refer to several factors which may be regarded as bases of
the principle, as factors leading the courts to give the
principle controlling weight in particular instances, or as
independent rules in themselves. These factors are the
respect due the governmental agencies charged with
administration, their competence, expertness, experience,
and informed judgment and the fact that they frequently are
the drafters of the law they interpret; that the agency is the
one on which the legislature must rely to advise it as to the
practical working out of the statute, and practical application
of the statute presents the agency with unique opportunity
and experiences for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or
improvements in the statute.
CARINO VS. CHR
alleged human right violation.
Investigate means to examine, inquire, explore.
Adjudicate to resolve, rule, settle, decide.
Megaworld Globus Asia vs. DSM Construction
Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
bodies, which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally
accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.
NAPOCOR vs. LEASTO
Arbitral decision accord respect and finality by the
Court
Exemption to the rule :
1. on the ground of promissory estoppels
2. And involving a legal issue and not a factual finding.
LUPANGCO vs. CA
Quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied to the action,
discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or
bodies required to investigate facts, or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions
from them, as a basis for their official action, and to
exercise discretion of a judicial nature. To expound
thereon, quasi-judicial adjudication would mean a
determination of rights, privileges and duties resulting in a
decision or order which applies to a specific situation . This
does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability
issued by the administrative body to implement its purely
administrative policies and functions like Resolution No. 105
which was adopted by the respondent PRC as a measure to
preserve the integrity of licensure examinations.
JURISDICTION - the competence of an office or body
to act on a given matter or decide a certain question.
CHIN vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petition.
AZARCON vs. Sandiganbayan
The court has no jurisdiction over the person of Azarcon.
DUE PROCESS
SANTIAGO vs. Alikpala
First requirement of procedural due process, namely,
the existence of the court or tribunal clothed with
judicial, or quasi-judicial, power to hear and determine
the matter before it.
There is the express admission in the statement of facts that
respondents, as a court-martial, were not convened to try
petitioner but someone else, the action taken against
petitioner being induced solely by a desire to avoid the effects
of prescription; it would follow then that the absence of a
competent court or tribunal is most marked and undeniable.
Such a denial of due process is therefore fatal to its
assumed authority to try petitioner.
NDC vs. Collector of Customs
Even in admin proceeding due process must be
observed.
We find this action proper for it really appears that petitioner
Rocha was not given an opportunity to prove that the
television set complained of is not a cargo that needs to be
manifested as required by Section 2521 of the Tariff and
Customs Code. Under said section, in order that an imported
article or merchandise may be considered a cargo that should
be manifested it is first necessary that it be so established for
the reason that there are other effects that a vessel may
carry that are excluded from the requirement of the law,
among which are the personal effects of the members of the
crew. The fact that the set in question was claimed by the
customs authorities not to be within the exception does not
automatically make the vessel liable. It is still necessary that
the vessel, its owner or operator, be given a chance to show
otherwise. This is precisely what petitioner Rocha has
requested in his letter. Not only was he denied this chance,
but respondent collector immediately imposed upon the
vessel the huge fine of P5,000.00. This is a denial of the
elementary rule of due process.
FABELLA vs. CA
In administrative proceedings, due process has been
recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or
constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which
may affect a respondents legal rights; (2) a real opportunity
to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to
present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend
ones rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent
jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as
impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is
supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration
during the hearing or contained in the records or made known
to the parties affected.
In the present case, the various committees formed by DECS
to hear the administrative charges against private
respondents did not include a representative of the local or,
in its absence, any existing provincial or national teachers
organization as required by Section 9 of RA
4670. Accordingly, these committees were deemed to
have no competent jurisdiction. Thus, all proceedings
undertaken by them were necessarily void. They could
not provide any basis for the suspension or dismissal of
private respondents. The inclusion of a representative of a
teachers organization in these committees was indispensable
to ensure an impartial tribunal. It was this requirement
that would have given substance and meaning to the
right to be heard. Indeed, in any proceeding, the
essence of procedural due process is embodied in the
basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to
be heard.
LUPO vs. Administrative Action Board
The requirements of due process in administrative
proceedings and these are:
(1) the right to a hearing which includes, the right to present
one's case and submit evidence in support thereof;
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) the decision must have something to support itself,
(4) the evidence must be substantial, and substantial
evidence means such evidence as a reasonable mind must
accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
(5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at
the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed
to the parties affected;
(6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or
his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate;
(7) the board or body should in all controversial questions,
render its decision in such manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the
reason for the decision rendered.
MADENILLA vs. CSC
No denial of due process.
"Due process of law implies the right of the person affected
thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces
judgment upon the question of life, liberty, and property in its
most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or
otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof,
every material fact which bears on the question of the light in
the matter involved."
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard.
The presence of a party is not always the cornerstone of due
process. In the case at bar, any defect was cured by the
filing of a motion for reconsideration.
KANLAON Construction vs. NLRC
Gen. Rule : Only lawyers are allowed to appear before
the labor arbiter
Exemption:
Non-lawyer member of the organization
Non-lawyer representing himself as party to the case
Member of the legal aid duly recognized by IBP or DOJ
Engineer Estacio can appear however his appearance
on behalf of Kanlaon required written proof of
authorization. Absent this authority whatever
statement and declaration made before the arbiter is
not binding to the petitioner.
First LEPANTO vs. CA
Clearly, Circular 1-91 effectively repealed or superseded
Article 82 of E.O. 226 insofar as the manner and method of
enforcing the right to appeal from decisions of the BOI are
concerned. Appeals from decisions of the BOI, which by
statute was previously allowed to be filed directly with the
Supreme Court, should now be brought to the Court of
Appeals.
Manuel vs. Villena
Technical rule of procedure are not strictly enforced and due
process of law in the strict judicial sense is not indispensable.
It is sufficient that substantive due process requirement of
fairness and reasonableness be observed.
RES JUDICATA
Judge Basilla vs. Becamon
Applying the principle of res judicata or bar by prior
judgment, the present administrative case becomes
dismissible.
The Court held that applied the principle of res judicata or bar
by prior judgment. Under the said doctrine, a matter that has
been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be
deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it
arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties
and for the same cause. It provides that a final judgment on
the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is
conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies; and
constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving
the same claim, demand, or cause of action. Res judicata is
based on the ground that the party to be affected, or some
other with whom he is in privity, has litigated the same
matter in the former action in a court of competent
jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again.
This principle frees the parties from undergoing all over again
the rigors of unnecessary suits and repetitious trials. At the
same time, it prevents the clogging of court dockets. Equally
important, res judicata stabilizes rights and promotes the rule
of law.
NHA vs. Almeida
In fine, it should be remembered that quasi-judicial powers
will always be subject to true judicial powerthat which is
held by the courts. Quasi-judicial power is defined as that
power of adjudication of an administrative agency for the
"formulation of a final order." This function applies to the
actions, discretion and similar acts of public administrative
officers or bodies who are required to investigate facts, or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw
conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and
to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. However,
administrative agencies are not considered courts, in their
strict sense. The doctrine of separation of powers reposes the
three great powers into its three (3) branchesthe
legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Each department
is co-equal and coordinate, and supreme in its own sphere.
Accordingly, the executive department may not, by its own
fiat, impose the judgment of one of its agencies, upon the
judiciary. Indeed, under the expanded jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, it is empowered to "determine whether or not
there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government."
Abelita vs. Doria
While the present case and the administrative case are based
on the same essential facts and circumstances, the doctrine
of res judicata will not apply.
There is no identity of causes of action in the cases. While
identity of causes of action is not required in the application
of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment,
it is required that there must always be identity of
parties in the first and second cases.
For res judicata to apply, the following requisites must
be present:
(a) the former judgment or order must be final;
(b) it must be a judgment or order on the merits,
that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the
evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the
trial of the case;
(c) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
and
(d) there must be, between the first and second
actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of
cause of action; this requisite is satisfied if the two
actions are substantially between the same parties.
SEC vs. INTERPORT SERVICES
SEC retains jurisdiction to investigate
Section 53 of the Securities Regulations Code clearly provides
that criminal complaints for violations of rules and regulations
enforced or administered by the SEC shall be referred to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for preliminary investigation,
while the SEC nevertheless retains limited investigatory
powers. Additionally, the SEC may still impose the appropriate
administrative sanctions under Section 54 of the
aforementioned law.
SEC vs. GMA Network, Inc.
Rate-fixing is a legislative function which concededly has been
delegated to the SEC by R.A. No. 3531 and other pertinent
laws. The due process clause, however, permits the courts
to determine whether the regulation issued by the SEC
is reasonable and within the bounds of its rate-fixing
authority and to strike it down when it arbitrarily
infringes on a persons right to property.
VIGAN ELECTRIC CO. vs. Public Service Commission
Partakes of the nature of a quasi-judicial function and
that having been issued without previous notice and
hearing said order is clearly violative of the due
process clause, and, hence, null and void.
QJ notice and hearing requirement.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
Bagonghasa vs. DAR
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts
from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction was
initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not
allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a
controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with
an administrative body of special competence. The Office of
the DAR Secretary is in a better position to resolve the
particular issue of non-issuance of a notice of coverage.
NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. UNIWIDE SALES
Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction,
courts will not determine a controversy where the issues for
resolution demand 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 other words, if a case is such
that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must
first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort
to the court is had even if the matter may well be within the
latter's proper jurisdiction. The objective of the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining
whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until
after an administrative agency has determined some question
or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding
before the court.
EXEMPTION to Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,
petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction would ordinarily preclude
us from resolving the matter, which calls for a ruling to be
first made by the Board. It is the latter that is vested by law
with exclusive and original jurisdiction to settle any dispute
arising under RA 8291, as well as other matters related
thereto. However, both the GSIS and respondents have
extensively discussed the merits of the case in their
respective pleadings and did not confine their arguments to
the issue of jurisdiction. Respondents, in fact, submit that we
should resolve the main issue on the ground that it is
a purely legal question. Respondents further state that a
remand of the case to the Board would merely result
in unnecessary delay and needless expense for the
parties.
GREGORIO VIGILAR SEC. of DPWH VS. ARNULFO
AQUINO
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises
as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to
the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said question at
best could be resolved only tentatively by the administrative
authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not with
them but with the courts of justice.
Geraldine Gaw Guy vs. The Board of Commissioners of
the Bureau of immigration
Judicial intervention, however, should be granted in cases
where the claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct in
deportation proceeding.
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES
NEW SUN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION vs. SB
BRGY. SUN VALLEY PARANAQUE
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is
that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out
their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the
specialized areas of their respective competence. The
rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser
expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of
controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of
justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of
administrative redress has been completed.
ARLIN OBIASCA VS. JEANE BASALLOTE
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
requires that, for reasons of law, comity and convenience,
where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for
administrative review and provides a system of administrative
appeal or reconsideration, the courts will not entertain a case
unless the available administrative remedies have been
resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given
an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the
administrative forum. In Orosa v. Roa, the Court ruled that if
an appeal or remedy obtains or is available within the
administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before
resort can be made to the courts. While the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to certain
exceptions, these are not present in this case.
EXEMPTION
REPUBLIC vs. CARLITO LACAP
Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
which are based on sound public policy and practical
considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many
accepted exceptions, such as:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking
the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently
illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction
that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to
make the rule impractical and oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) when its application may cause great and
irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies has been rendered moot;
(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy;
(k) when strong public interest is involved; and,
(l) in quo warranto proceedings. Exceptions (c) and (e)
are applicable to the present case.
KHRISTINE REA REGINO VS. PANGASINAN COLLEGES
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Petitioner is not asking for the reversal of the policies of PCST.
Neither is she demanding it to allow her to take her final
examinations; she was already enrolled in another
educational institution. A reversal of the acts complained of
would not adequately redress her grievances; under the
circumstances, the consequences of respondents' acts could
no longer be undone or rectified.
Second, exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable
when there is competence on the part of the administrative
body to act upon the matter complained of. Administrative
agencies are not courts; they are neither part of the judicial
system, nor are they deemed judicial tribunals. Specifically,
the CHED does not have the power to award damages. Hence,
petitioner could not have commenced her case before the
Commission.
Third, the exhaustion doctrine admits of exceptions, one of
which arises when the issue is purely legal and well within the
jurisdiction of the trial court. Petitioner's action for damages
inevitably calls for the application and the interpretation of
the Civil Code, a function that falls within the jurisdiction of
the courts.