admin finals reviewer 2

8/18/2019 ADMIN Finals Reviewer 2

1/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

C

Chapter 1

Administrative Law

Broad Sense Law, which provides structure of government and prescribes its procedure.

Law which is intended to control administrative procedures of government

Widest Sense Entire system of laws under which the machinery of state works and by which the state

performs all government actsGoodnow’s (less comprehensive) Part of the public law, which fixes the organization and determines the competence of

the authorities which execute the law, and indicates to the individual remedies forthe violation of his rights.

Dean Rosco Pound’s (narrower) Branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government

acting in a quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative capacity, interferes with the conductof the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community , asunder laws regulating public corporations, business affected with public interest,

professions, trades, and callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of the publichealth and safety and promotion of the public convenience and advantage.

All of the definition has similaritieso Laws

o State – governmento

Performs or Acts specific functions

Under Goodnow’s definition – it added an additional a new concept which is REMEDIES – that the government interferes in administrative

actionUnder Pounds definition

o It justified why the government interferes

! “purpose of promoting the well-being of the community”o It expounded why the government interferes from Goodnow’s definition

ELEMENTS

Branch of modern lawo Recent origin – enforcing stage

Under executive department

o Inly under executive departmentActing in quasi legislative and quasi-judicial capacity

o

Functions administrative law can act – its powers

Interferes with rights of the individual

o Limits or expand a right for the benefit of societyJustification

o General : welfare or promotion of society

Criticisms Advantages

1. Tendency towards arbitrariness

• Can be restrictive or lax – law is given wide latitude

of discretion thus they can decide either way ( infavor or against)

• CON: whimsical actions or decisions

1. Advantages of administrative adjudication vs. Executive action

Executive action: insures greater uniformity and impersonality of action.

Congress resorted to administrative process as an alternative to executive action

2. Lack of legal knowledge and aptitude in sound judicialtechnique

2. Limitations upon powers of court

Congress has entrusted the administration of some laws to administrative agenciesinstead of the courts

3. Susceptibility to political bias or pressure, often brought

about by uncertainty of tenure

3. Trend towards preventive legislation

4. Disregard for the safeguards that insure a full and fair hearings

•

More leeway or lax to implement – expedite the case

4. Limitations upon effective legislative action

5. Absence of standard rules of procedure suitable to the

activities of each agency

•

Every agency – own specialization

• Give way for adoption – can adjust

5. Limitations upon exclusively judicial enforcement

6. Dangerous combination of legislative, executive and judicial

functions

•

Discharge of functions

• Unclogged the courts

•

Expertise:

a. Regulates acts – legislative

b. Implement – executivec. Enforce - judicial

Cases:


2/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

D

Topic: Origin and Development of Administrative Law

1. SOLID HOMES, INC., vs. TERESITA PAYAWAL and COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 84811 August 29, 1989)

• Whether or not the courts under BP 129 (RTC has jurisdiction over the case or under PD 597 as amended by PD 1344 (empowering the NHA to

take cognizant of cases between owner, contractor, developer or salesman)

•

PD 597 as amended by PD 1344 states that

SECTION 1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for inPresidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the

following nature:

A. Unsound real estate business practices;

B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner,

developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and

C. Cases involving specific performance of contractuala statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unitagainst the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. (Emphasis supplied.)

• This construction must yield to the familiar canon that in case of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail

regardless of the dates of their enactment - general law in this case is BP No. 129 and PD No. 1344 the special law.

• the Court sustained the competence of the respondent administrative body, in the exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction vested in it by PD No. 957

and PD No. 1344, to determine the rights of the parties under a contract to sell a subdivision lot.

2. CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, INC., vs. SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO and PRISCILLA T. IGNACIO (G.R. No. 164789 August 27,

2009)

• know

o what kind of real estate : SUBDIVISION SELLERo HOW it was sold - installment

• SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers

provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hearand decide cases of the following nature:

A. Unsound real estate business practices;B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyeragainst the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and

C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers ofsubdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.

• Note particularly pars. (b) and (c) as worded, where the HLURB’s jurisdiction concerns cases commenced by subdivision lot or

condominium unit buyers. As to par. (a), concerning “unsound real estate practices,” it would appear that the logical complainant

would be the buyers and customers against the sellers (subdivision owners and developers or condominium builders andrealtors ), and not vice versa. [Emphasis supplied.]

• CGA principally wants is a refund of all payments it already made to the respondents. This intent, amply articulated in its complaint, places its

action within the ambit of the HLURB’s exclusive jurisdiction and outside the reach of the regular courts. Accordingly, CGA has to file itscomplaint before the HLURB, the body with the proper jurisdiction.

o SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powersprovided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear

and decide cases of the following nature:

xxxB. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominiumunit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and

o NOTE: BUYER" against project owner, developer, dealer, broker, salesman (NOT VICE VERSA)

Topic: Criticism vs. Administrative Action

3. LOLITA DADUBO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (223 SCRA 747)

• HELD:

o

We must also dismiss the petitioner's complaint that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed to comply with the constitutional requirementto state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which a decision is based. We have held that this provision applies only to courts

of justice and not to administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission.16

In any event, there was an earlier statement of the

facts and the law involved in the decision rendered by the MSPB dated February 28, 1990, which affirmed DBP's decision to dismissthe petitioner. In both decisions, the facts and the law on which they were based were clearly and distinctly stated.

•

NOTE: Administrative decisions on matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of

discretion, fraud or error of law (which the COURT can now take action on)

Topic: Advocates of Administrative Law4. LIANGA BAY LOGGING, CO., INC., vs. HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, and AGO TIMBER CORPORATION, (G.R. No. L-30637 July 16,

1987)

• Ago vs Lianga Bay Logging : determining the correct boundary line of the licensed timber areas of the contending parties

• Director of Forestry (decided in favor or Lianga) " Appealed to Dept. of Agriculture and Naturan Resources " appealed to the Office of the

President (decided in favor of Lianga


3/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

E

• Ago – went to court to determine boundary line " Lianga elevated the case via Certiorari to the SC

• HELD:

o court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of Civil Case No. 1253 of the Court of First Instance of Agusan nor has it jurisdiction

to decide on the common boundary of the licensed areas of petitioner Lianga and respondent Ago, as determined by respondents public officials against whom no case of grave abuse of discretion has been made. Absent a cause of action and jurisdiction,respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and excess, if not lack, of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the case under

review and in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the final decision

• NOTE:

o courts of justice will generally not interfere with purely administrative matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of

government agencies and their expertise unless there is a clear showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse ofdiscretion or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their action may amount to an excess or lack of

jurisdiction.

Topic: Elements of Administrative Law

5. IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS (249 SCRA 538)

• This case is about ISA commencing expropriation proceedings – but during the proceedings ISA expired ( the government granting its power

now ceases to exist)

•

HELD:

o ISA was held to be under National Government – it is under the executive department

o Non incorporated – delegate or agent of the Philippines" responsibility reverts back to the Philippines upon expiration

• NOTE:

o Courts have no jurisdiction over decision of administrative body EXCEPT upon abuse of discretion

6. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, vs. ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES (249 SCRA 162)

• Arbitration case: violation by LDB of collective bargaining agreement

•

LDB did not pass its position paper as required by the Arbiter thus it decided in favor or LDBE• It was appealed to the SC

• BP129 – CA has appellate jurisdiction over quasi judicial agency decisions

•

SC said

o

Voluntary arbitration not government employee / department BUT considered quasi judicial instrumentality

o Instrumentality – authority to which the state delegates power to perform state function

•

NOTE

o

An "instrumentality" is anything used as a means or agency. 12

Thus, the terms governmental "agency" or "instrumentality" are

synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by which a government acts, or by which a certain government act or function

is performed. 13

The word "instrumentality," with respect to a state, contemplates an authority to which the state delegatesgovernmental power for the performance of a state function.

14 An individual person, like an administrator or executor, is a judicial

instrumentality in the settling of an estate, 15

in the same manner that a sub-agent appointed by a bankruptcy court is an instrumentality

of the court, 16

and a trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is an instrumentality of the state. 17

o In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition

for certiorari from that award or decision, the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme

Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals petit ions of this nature for proper disposition.

CHAPTER 2

BASIC CONCEPTS:

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY a. Is an organ of government, other than a court and other than a legislature b. Which affects the rights of private partiesc. Through either adjudication or rule – making

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY

(administrative Code of 1987)

a. Refer to any of the various units of the government b. Including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or GOCC or local government or a distinct unit

therein.

COVERAGE Boards, commission, division, bureaus, departments, office, authority, corporation, administration, division oragency

4th

BRANCH OF THE

GOVERNMENT

a. It is either executive (administrative) or judicial

OR b. It is quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial

TYPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES (PROCIP)

Performing business service for public Phil Postal Corp

PNRMWSS

NEA

NFA NHA

Regulating business affected with public interest Insurance Commission

LTFRBERB

NTC

HLURB

Offering grant, gratuity, special privilege PVAOGSIS

PAO


4/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

F

Philhealth

Carry function of government BOC

BIRBIDLRA

Imbued with social policy NLRCECCSSC

SEC

DARCOA

Police power to regulate private business or individuals SECMTRCB

GAB

DDB

CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

MANNER OF CREATION EXAMPLES

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

(maybe self-executing)

Constitutional Commission Art 9 1987 Constitution

Ombudsman Art 11 Sec 5 1987 Constitution

CHR Art 13 Sec 17 1987 Constitution

LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS

(usual source of creation)

OMB RA 9239 Optical Media Act of 2003

National Computer Center PD 1480 June 11 1978

Toll Regulatory Board PD 1112

AUTHORITY OF LAW

(delegated executive)

Presidential Communications Groups EO 4 July 30 2010

ORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

ACTIVITY DEFINITION EXAMPLE

1.

CREATION

a. Bringing into existence b.

Of an administrative agencyEO 122 –A (Jam. 30 1987)Creating OMA

2.

REORGANIZATION

a. Alternation of the structure

b. Of an administrative body

EO 297 (July 25, 1987) Reorganization of OPS

3.

ABOLITION

a. Terminating the existence

b. Of an administrative office

EO 13 (Nov 15, 2010)

Abolishing PAGC

4.

DEACTIVATION

a. Office continues to exist b. Albeit dormant

EO 191 (Jan 7, 2000)Deactivation of EIIB

REORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

PURPOSES a.

Simplicity

b. Economy

c. Efficiency

Larin vs Executive Secretary 280 SCRA 713

FACTS: in 1993 Pres. Ramos issue EO 132 streamlining BIR, Excise Tax Service, headed byLarin was abolished. Then, Pres Ramos appointed 10 BIR assistant commissions, excluding

Larin

HELD: if abolition is done for political reasons or to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise not

in good faith, no valid abolition takes place and whatever abolition is done is void ab initio

LIMITATIONS Good Faith Dario vs Mison 176 SCRA 84

FACTS: on Jan 26, 1988 Commission Salvador Mison notified various Customs officials thattheir services were terminated. Deputy Commissioner Cesar Dario was one of the 394 officials

and employees of BOC who were separated from service

HELD: Terminating 394 BOC employees and thereafter hiring 522 replacements is a revamp

pure and simple. Mison may carry out reorganization under the transitory provisions of the1987 Constitution. But such reorganization should be subject to the criterion of good faith

POWER TO REORGANIZE

EXECUTIVE

POWER

Art VII Sec 17 1987

Constitution: The President

shall have control of all the

executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall

ensure that the laws befaithfully executed.

Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs Zamora

GR no 142801-802 July 10, 2001

FACTS: on Jan 7, 2000 Pres Estrade issue EO 191, ordering deactivation of EIIB and transferof its function to BOC and NBI. On March 29, 2000 Estrade issue EO 223 proving that EIIB

personnel shall be deemed separated from service effective April 30, 2000

HELD: as far as offices in the executive department are concerned, President’s power of control

may justify him to inactivate functions of particular office, or certain laws may grant himauthority to carry out reorganization measures


5/26


6/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

H

require the disclosure of information bymeans of accounts, records, reports,

statements, testimony of witnesses,

production of documents or otherwise.

circumstances according to the dictates oftheir own judgment and conscience and not

by others.

Quasi – legislative / Rule -

Making

Permissible Delegation of Powers:

TariffsEmergency Power

Administrative Bodies

Local GovernmentInitiatives

Ministerial Performed in response to a duty which has

been imposed by law and not dependent

upon an officer’s discretion

Quasi – judicial /

Adjudicatory

Must be expressly granted and cannot just be implied

Cases

Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. v. SEC, G.R. No. L-23004, June 30,

1965

Makati Stock Exchange: applied for a permit for a Stock Exchange in addition to

Manila Stock Exchange

SEC: approved; BUT with the condition of NO DOUBLE LISTING.

Makati SE: complained that SEC has no power to impose such condition

SEC: averred that no stock exchange shall operate without authority from them becausethey have the power to license

Makati SEC: no express provision; denied application – went to court.

SC: admin body can only exercise power expressly provided / necessarily complied

therefrom.

Ultra Vires: actions taken by government bodies or corporations that exceed the scope

of power given to them

Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal, G.R. No. 84811, August 29, 1989

(FOCUS: issue interpretation of laws grantingpowers / statcon)

“Once power is expressly granted” = construction is liberal

Express powers are liberally interpreted to exercise functions intended by law

In case of doubt: resolved in favor of admin body to exercise power granted to it

Transaction: sale of condo/subdivision lots (installments) = if NOT expressed = NHA

no jurisdiction to assume case

PD 957 = general rescission = involves breach contract = court of general jurisdictionRTC

Taule v. Santos, G.R. No. 90336, August 12, 1991 Taule:I

Elected with 4 other barangay captains

I

President of Association of Federation of Brgy. Captains in Catanduanes

(more like a city councilor / member of provincial board kind of position)

DILG: nullifies the elections because the election process was not followed.

Taule: was not happy

Not COMELEC = not barangay elections

Sec. Santos: contention was the conduct of elections of the federation or the guidelines

followed.

No express provision; since power to issue guidelines can be implied in this provision

Doctrine of Necessary Implication: The doctrine which states that what is implied in

a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressedSC: when results were nullified Santos heard and determined the rights of the partieswhich is a QUASI – JUDICIAL power

No express provision = no right to nullify

General Rule: expressly granted / necessary implication

Exception: QJP must be expressly granted

Payawal Makati SE Taule


7/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

J

I Power to assume jurisdiction

PD957I

Included: activity arises from

transaction of sale of

legislative content = liberal =

valid PD957

Express and Implied

No express grant of power = no provision

to liberally interpret

Power to issue complied? NO!

QJP should be expressly granted

No express grant of power = no provision to liberally interpret

BASIC CONCEPTS

INVESTIGATORY POWER(inquisitorial power)

a.

Power to carry out a systematic or formal inquiry b. On violation of lawsc.

And to gather information on proposed legislations

JUDICIAL FUNCTION a. Power to adjudicate

b. Upon rights and obligations of parties

JUDICIAL DISCRETION a. Power to evaluate evidence submitted to it b. On the facts and circumstances presented

TEST OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS a. Not the exercise of judicial discretion b. But the power and authority to adjudicatec. Upon rights and obligations of parties before it

INVESTIGATORY POWER

PRINCIPLE NO 1 To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge

CARINO VS CHR 204 SCRA 483FACTS:

MPSTA and ACT Members – on Sept 17, 1990 undertook “mass concerted action” to “dramatize” theur plight for failure of authorities to act

upon their grievancesSec. Isidro Carino – issued return to work order in 24 hrs to striking teachers or face dismissed for failure to heed the order, teachers were

charged, preventively suspended for 90 days and temporarily replacedTeachers – complained to CHR that they were replaced without notice and for no reason. Carino moved for dismissed for lack of jurisdictions.CHR denied the motion and ruled that there had been violation of the teachers’ civil and political rights which CHR was empowered to

investigate Carino elevated the case to SCHELD

The only thing CHR can do, if it concludes that Sec. Carino was in error, is to refer matter to appropriate Government agency or tribunal for

assistance, that would be CSC, it cannot arrogate unto itself the appellate jurisdiction of the CSC

The most that may be conceded to CHR is that it may investigate i.e receive evidence and make findings of facts as regards claimed humanrights violations involving civil and political rights

PURPOSES OF GRANT OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS

INFORMATION GATHERING CHR

NBI

Sec 18 Art XIII (1) Investigate, on its own or on

complaint by any party, all forms of human rightsviolations involving civil and political rights;

Sec 1 RA 157 (a) To undertake investigations ofcrimes and other offenses against the laws of the

Philippines, upon its own initiative and as public

interest may require;

PROSEUCTION PURPOSES Public ProseuctorOmbudsman

Sec 13 Art XI 1987 Constitution (1) Investigateon its own, or on complaint by any person, any

act or omission of any public official, employee,

office or agency, when such act or omissionappears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or

inefficient.

AID TO OTHER POWERS SEC Sec 5 (a) Securities Regulation Code (RA8799)(a) Have jurisdiction and supervision over all

corporations, partnership or associations who arethe grantees of primary franchises and/or alicense or a permit issued by the Government;

Sec 5(d) Securities Regulation Code (RA8799)

(d) Regulate, investigate or supervise the

activities of persons to ensure compliance;

SCOPE AND EXTENT OF INVESTIGATIVE POWERS

SCOPE EXTENT ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

1. INITIATION OF

INVESTIGATION (examine,explore, inquire)

On complaint

OrOwn motion

Villaluz vs Zaldivar (15 SCRA 710) power of control of President

may extend to power to investigate, suspend or remove officers andemployees who belong to executive department (presidentialappointees)

2. CONDUCT OFINVESTIGATION (audit, physicalinvestigation, monitoring)

May be held in private Ruiz vs Drilon 209 SCRA 695 – respondent in administrative case isnot entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations ofinvestigating committee


8/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

K

Sec of Justice vs Lantion 332 SCRA 160 – due process rights of noticeand hearing may be invoked at evaluation stage of extradition

proceedings

Pefianco vs Moral 322 SCRA 439 – respondent in administrative case

is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations ofinvestigating committee

3. INSPECTION AND

EXAMINATION (routine

inspection for enforcement ofregulation)

No search warrant required

Conduct inspection during reasonablehours

Camara vs Mun. Court 387 US 523 – There was no emergency

demanding immediate access. Yet no warrant was obtained.

Salazar vs Achacoso 183 SCRA 145 – Art 39 Labor Code, which

grants Secretary of Labor authority to issue orders of arrest, search andseizure, is unconstitutional, because Secretary is not a judge

4.ACCOUNTS, RECORDS,

REPORTS OR STATEMENTS

Access to documents of person being

investigated

Catura vs CIR 37 SCRA 303 – documents required to be produced

constitutes evidence of most solid character as to whether or not therewas failure to comply with mandates of the law.

5. ATTENDANCE OF

WITNESSES

No inherent power to:

1. Require attendance2.

Put under oath; require to

testify

Evangelista vs Jarencio 69 SCRA 99 – subpoena is within legal

competence of PARGO to issue pursuant to EO 4 which empowered itto “summon witness… relevant to the investigation”

6.HEARING May be held but not necessary part of

investigation

Office Court Administrator vs Canque 588 SCRA 226 –

administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process inits strict judicial sense. A formal or trial-type hearing is not required.

7. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

(failing to appear or refusing to produce document)

Requisites:

1. Statutory grant2.

Performing quasi – judicialfunctions

Carmelo vs Ramos 116 Phil 1152 – one who invokes Sec 580 RAC

must first show he has “authority to take testimony or evidence” before he can apply to courts for punishment of hostile witnesses

Masangcay vs Comelec 6 SCRA 27 – when comelec exercises

ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to punish contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature

Bedol vs Comelec 606 SCRA 554 – to withhold from comelec the power of contempt would render nugatory its investigation power

which is an essential incident to its mandate to secure honest andcredible elections

8. RULES OF PROCEDURES

AND EVIDENCE

Administrative agency is given wide

latitude

Gaoiran v Alcala 444 SCRA 428 – in administrative proceedings,

technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.

I. INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION

PRINCIPLE Administrative agency or official may initiate investigation on a complaint or on its own motion

VILLALUZ vs ZALDIVAR 15 SCRA 710

FACTS:Ruben Villaluz – was appointed Administrator of Motor Vehicles Office (MVO)Cong. Joaquin Roces (Chairman of the Committee on Good Government) – informed the President about the findings of his Committee

concerning alleged gross mismanagement and efficiency committed by Villaluz in MVO. Cong. Roces recommended the replacement of VillaluzPresident = dismissed Villaluz, after the investigating committee created thereby its reportVillaluz – claims that the administrative proceedings conducted against him are illegal since there was no previous verified complaint against him

HELD:The chief executive, as administrative head of Villaluz, is empowered to commence administrative proceedings motu proprio, without need of

any previous complaint.

II. CONDUCT INVESTIGATION

PRINCIPLE NO 1. Respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of

investigating committee.

RUIZ VS DRILON 209 SCRA 695FACTS:

Dr. Eliseo Ruiz - was ordered dismissed by Pres. Aquino for dishonesty and grave misconduct as President of Central Luzon State University

(CLSU) ES Franklin Drilon denied Ruiz MRRuiz – filed petition for prohibition with CA, which issued TRO. After 8 days, Ruiz filed with SC petition for annulment of AO 218 as well as

orders of Drilon denying his MR. CA dismissed the petition as forum shopping. Thus, Ruiz went to SC alleging that he was not informed of thefindings of the investigation conducted against him.

HELD

Ruiz is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed againsthim

He is entitled only to an administrative decision that is based on substantial evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made

against him and the evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigating committees.PEFIANCO V MORAL 322 SCRA 439FACTS:

Maria Luisa Moral (Chief Librarian National Library) – was charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudiced to the bestinterest of the service (pilferage of historical documents)DECS Investigating Committee – conducted hearings. Thereafter DECS Sec Ricardo Gloria ordered Moral dismissed from government service


9/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

L

Moral – filed Petition for Production of Investigating Committee Report purportedly to guide her on whatever action to take. Her petition wasdenied. She filed for mandamus. RTC denied motion to dismiss filed by Gloria. On appeal CA, sustained RC. Gloria went to SC

HELDA respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created toinquire into charges filed against him.

He is entitled only to the decision based on substantial evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and evidence presented against

her during the hearings of the investigation committee

PRINCIPLE NO 2. Due process rights of notice and hearing may be invoked at evaluation stage of extradition proceedings

SEC. OF JUSTICE VS LANTION 332 SCRA 160FACTS:

Sec Franklin Drilon - formed a panel to evaluate the request for extradition by the US government of Mark Jimenez, who is wanted in the USfor various crimes

Jimenez – pending evaluation, requested for copies of extradition request and documents submitted

Drilon – denied the request on the ground, inter alia, that its premature to furnish Jimenez documentJudge Ralph Lantion – upon petition of Jimenez directed DOJ to maintain status quo. Drilon went to SC

HELD

One will search in vain the RP-US Extradition Treaty, the Extradition Law ( PD1069), as well as American jurisprudence and procedures onextradition, for any prohibition against the enforcement of 2 basic due process rights of notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of theextradition proceedings

Jimenez does not only face clear and present danger and loss of property or employment, but of liberty itself, which may eventually lead to his

forcible banishment to a foreign land

III. INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION

PRINCIPLE NO 1. No search warrant is required but inspection must be conducted during reasonable hours

CAMARA V MUNICIPAL COURT 387 US 523

FACTSCamara – was a lessee of the ground floor of an apartment building

San Francisco Health Department – received information that Camara, was using the rear of his leasehold as residence. Claiming that the

building’s occupancy permit did not allow residential use of the ground floor, inspector of the Health Department demanded that Camara permitan inspection of the premisesCamara – refused to allow the inspection because the inspector lacked search warrant

HELDThere was no emergency demanding immediate access; in fact the inspectors made three trips to the building in an attempt to obtain Camara’s

consent to the search

Yet no warrant was obtained and thus Camara was unable to verify either the need for or the appropriate limits of the inspection

PRINCIPLE NO 2. Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge

SALAZAR VS ACHACOSO 183 SCRA 145FACTS

Timas Achacoso (POEA Adminsitrator) – ordered the seizure of documents and paraphernalia being used as means of committing illegalrecruitment owned by Hortencia Salazar

Salazar – requested POEA that the personal properties seized be immediately returned on the ground that said seizure violate Sec 2 Art 3 of thePhilippine Consitution which guarantees right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable

searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose” Before POEA could act on the request, Salazar filed suit for Prohibition with SCHELD

The Secretary of Labor (or the POEA Administrator), not being a judge may no longer issue search or arrest warrantsArt 38 par. C of the Labor Code empowering the Labor Secretary to issue search and arrest warrants in illegal recruitment cases is declaredunconstitutional.

IV.

ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, REPORTS OR STATEMENTS

PRINCIPLE Accounts, records, reports or statements may be required to be delivered and deposited with administrative body at

the hearing.

CATURA VS CIR 37 SCRA 303FACTS

Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador – President and Treasurer, respectively, of Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administrative Employees Association(PVTAEA) were charged before the CIR with “unauthorized disbursement of union funds”CIR – required Catura and Salvador to deliver and deposit all Association’s book of accounts and other documents related to finances of the

union

Catura and Salvador – filed MR on the ground that the order was beyond the power of CIR to issueHELD

All that the challenged order did was to require said union officers to “deliver and deposit” with CIR all documents related to its finances at thehearingThe documents required to be produced constitutes evidence of the most solid character as to whether or not there was a failure to comply with

the mandates of the law

V. ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES

PRINCIPLE It is common for statutes to confer such powers on administrative agencies

EVANGELISTA VS JARENCION 69 SCRA 99FACTS

Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations ( PARGO) – created through EO 4, with power to investigate immoral practices,graft and corruptions, and to investigate any public official or employee. Further, it is vested with power to summon witnesses, administer oaths,

take testimony or evidence relevant to investigation.


10/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CM

Usec. Quirico Evangelista – issued subpoena to Fernando Manalastas, Public Service officer of ManilaManalastas – instead of obeying subpoena, filed with CFI-Manila petition for prohibition contending that Pargo’s subpoena power is exercisable

when it is performing quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functionJudge Hilarion Jarencio – granted the Petition. Thus Usec. Evangelista went to SC

HELD

The subpoena is well within the legal competence of PARGO to issue pursuant to EO 4 (5) which empowered it to “summon witness… relevant

to the investigation”Subpoena power operates in all functions of PARGO. It is not merely exercisable in quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. To hold thatsubpoena power of PARGO is confined to mere quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions would inactivate the Agency in its investigatory

functions.

VI.

HEARING

PRINCIPLES In administrative investigation, formal or trial type hearing is not required.

OFFICE OF COURT ADM. V CANQUE 588 SCRA 226

FACTS:Sylvia Canque (Clerk of Court of Cebu) – was arrested by NBI after an entrapment operation. SC treated the NPI entrapment as administrativecomplaint for grave misconduct. Case was referred to OCA for investigation, report and recommendation. SC, upon recommendation of OCA,

reassigned case to RTC-Cebu for investigation, report and recommendationInvestigating Judge – found Conque guilty of grave misconduct and recommended penalty of dismissalOCA – recommended that report of Investigating Judge be set aside and complaint be reinvestigated upon finding that Canque was not informed

of her right to be heard by herself and counsel during the investigation which allegedly amounted to denial of her right to due process

HELDThe essence of due process is that a party be afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of

his defenseTechnical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied to administrative proceedings. Thus, administrative due process cannot be fullyequated with due process in its strict judicial sense. A formal or trial-type of hearing is not required.

VII.

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

PRINCIPLE NO1. Power to punish contempt must be expressly granted to administrative body

CARMELO VS RAMOS 116 PHIL 1152FACTS

Jesus Carmelo – tasked by virtue of an EMO issued by the Mayor of Manila to head a committee to investigate anomalies involving certain city

personnel, issued subpoenas to Amando Ramos, bookkeeper, to appear in connection with an administrative case but Ramos refused. Carmelofiled in CFI- Manila to declare Ramos in contempt. CFI ruled that there is no law empowering committees created by municipal mayors to issuesubpoenas and demand witnesses to testify under oath

Carmelo – appealed to the SC invoking Sec 580 Revised Administrative Code which provides “when authority to take testimony or evidence is

conferred upon… any… committee… such authority shall… comprehend the right to administer oaths and summon witnesses… Any on withoutlawful excuse, fails to appear upon summons… shall be subject to discipline as in case of contempt of court”

HELDOne who invokes Sec 580 must first show he has authority to take testimony or evidence before he can apply to courts for punishment of hostilewitnesses

There is nothing in the EO about such grant of power. All that the order gives to this body is power to investigate anomalies involving certain city

anomalies. Delegation of power to investigate does not imply delegation of power to take testimony or evidence of witnesses whose appearancemay be required by the compulsory process of subpoena.

PRINCIPLE NO 2. Effectiveness of quasi-judicial power hinges on its authority to compel attendance of parties and their witnesses at

hearings.

BEDOL VS COMELEC 606 SCRA 554

FACTS:Comelec Task Force Maguindanao – was tasked to conduct fact-finding investigation of allegations of fraud and irregularities in the onduct of the

May 14,2007 elections in Maguindanao

Lintang Bedol (PES for Maguindanao) – for refusing to appear during hearings and to answer questions before the task force, was found guilty ofContempt of the Commission and meted 6 months imprisonment. He filed MR, which was denied. He elevated case to SC contending thatCOMELEC, sitting as National Board of Canvassers, was performing administrative and not quas-judicial functions. He argued that COMELEC,

in that capacity, could not punish him for contempt.HELD

COMELEC, through task force Maguindanao was exercising its quasi-judicial power in pursuit of truth behind the allegations of massive fraud

during the elections in Maguindana

To withhold from COMELEC the power to punish individuals who refuse to appear during the fact-finding investigation, would render nugatoryCOMELEC’s investigatory power, which is an essential incident to its constitutional mandate to secure the conduct of honest and credibleelections.

PRINCIPLE NO 3. When granted power to contempt may only be exercised only when administrative body is performing quasi-judicial

functions

MASANGKAY V COMELEC 6 SCRA 27

FACTS:

Benjamin Masangcay (Provincial Treasurer of Aklan) – was charged before COMELEC with contempt for having opened three boxes containingofficial and sample ballots for Aklan, in violation of Comelec, resolution inasmuch as he opened said boxes not in the presence of divisionsuperintendent of schools, provincial auditor, and representatives of NP, LP and Citizen’s party, as required in said resolution

Masangkay – elevated the case to SC contending that even if he can be held guilty of contempt, the decision is null and void for lack of valid power on the part of the Commission to impose such disciplinary penalty.

HELD:


11/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CC

When Comelec exercises ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to punish contempt because such power is inherently judicial in natureThe resolution which COMELEC tried to enforce and for whose violation the charge for contempt was filed against Masangcay merely call for

the exercise of an administrative or ministerial function for they merely concern the procedure to be follower in the distribution of ballots andother election paraphernalia among the difference municipalities.

GAOIRAN VS ALCALA 444 SCRA 428

FACTSFlorian Gaoiran (Head Teacher, Angadanan Agro-Industrial College) – was charged by Edmon Castillejo (Administrative officer of the sameschool) before the CHED, for mauling him while he was performing his duties. Appended to complaint were verified criminal complaint filed by

Castillejo and sworn statements of his witnesses for assault to person in authority. Caoiran was preventively suspended for 90 days. He soughtreconsideration contending that complaint was not under oath citing EO 292Angel Alcala (CHED chairman) – dismissed Gaoiran from service Gaoiran filed petition with RTC, which ruled in his favor. On appeal, CA

reversed RTC. Aggrieved, Gaoiran went to SC.

HELDThe verified criminal complaint that Castillejo filed against Gaoiran, as well as the sworn statements of his witnesses could be very well

considered as constituting the complaint against himGovernment agency is given wide latitude in the scope and exercise of its investigative powers. After all, in administrative proceedings, technicalrules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.

VIII. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE

PRINCIPLE Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings

ANG TIBAY VS CIR 60 PHIL 635

FACTSAng Tibay – owned and operated by Toribio Teodoro, is a leather company which supplies Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of leathersoles, Toribio laid off members of National Labor Union

NLU – sought relief from CIR alleging that this was but scheme to discharge members of NLU from work as borne out by “records of Bureau ofCustoms and Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather”

CIR – ruled in favor of Ang Tibay. NLU now petitions for new trial as they were able to come up with new evidence that they were not able to

obtain before as they were inaccessible and thus were not able to present them in the CIR HELD

CIR more an administrative than part of the integrated judicial system of the nation

The fact that CIR may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases beforeit, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrativecharacter

Rule Making Power

BASIC CONCEPTS

RULE-MAKING POWER

(power of subordinate legislation)

a.

Power given to administrative agencies

b. To issue or promulgate rules and regulations

c. Necessary to carry out its functions

RULES AND REGULATIONS a.

Those issued by administrative or executive officersb. In accordance with and as authorized by law

RATIONALE Administrative bodies have:

a. Competence

b. Opportunity

NECESSITY a. In order to adopt to the increasing complexity

b. Of modern life and variety of public functions

NATURE OF GRANT a. Relaxation of separation of powers; and

b. An exception to non-delegation of legislative powers

PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

RULE RULE: potestas delegata non delegari potest

BASIS: Delegated Power = (Right + Duty) – Further Delegation = Negation

KMU V GARCIA (239 SCRA 386)

FACTS:

LTFRB Circular – Authorized provincial bus operators to increase or decrease prescribed fare without first having filed a petition

Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines (BOAP) – pursuant there, announced 20% fare increase

KMU – opposed the move. However, LTFRB dismissed the petition. KMU went to SC assailing he constitutionality of said Circular on theground that it violates Sec 16© of Public Service Act (CA 146), which tasks the LTFRB with the duty to fix and determine just and reasonable

fares

HELD

a. Legislature delegated to the defunct PSC the power of fixing rates of public services. LTFRB (regulatory board today) is likewisevested with the same under EO 202

b.

Nowhere under said law is LTFRB authorized to delegate that power to transport operators. The authority given by LTFRB to

provincial bus operators to set fare range is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative authority. Potestas delegate non delegari

potest.

3 ISSUES ON RULE MAKING POWER


12/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CD

1. PERMISSIBILITY OF

DELEGATION

Whether or not there is:a.

Legislative grant of authority

b.

To administrative bodies

c. To issue rules and regulations

1. Delegation of tariff powers to the president

2.

Delegation of emergency powers to the

president3. Delegation to the people at large

4. Delegation to local government5. Delegation to administrative bodies

2. VALIDITY OF DELEGATION Whether or not the grant meets the

a. Completeness test

b.

Sufficient standard test

1. Statute is complete in all its essential

terms and conditions when it leaves

legislature so that there will be nothingleft for delegate to do when it reaches

him except to enforce it2.

Statute fixes a standard, mapping out the

boundaries of the delegate’s authority

by defining the legislative policy andindicating the circumstances underwhich it is to be pursued an effected

3.

VALIDITY OF EXERCISED Whether or not regulation conforms with:

a. What the statute provides b. Whether the same is reasonable

1.

Not inconsistent with constitution

2. Not inconsistent with statute3. Cannot amend act of congress

4. Cannot exceed provisions of basic law5. Uniform, reasonable, not unfair or

disciminatory

1ST

ISSUE : PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION

1. Delegation of tariff powers to the president SECTION 28.(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President tofix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations andrestrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas,

tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within theframework of the national development program of the Government.

2. Delegation of emergency powers to the president SECTION 23. (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the

Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period andsubject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powersnecessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless

sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shallcease upon the next adjournment thereof.

3. Delegation to the people at large Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly

proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at leasttwelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which

every legislative district must be represented by at least three per

centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under thissection shall be authorized within five years following the ratification

of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. 4.

Delegation to local government Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which

shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local governmentstructure instituted through a system of decentralization

5.

Delegation to administrative bodies By Legislative Act – authorizing it to promulgate rules and regulations

By implication – adopt rules and regulations deemed necessary to theefficient exercise of the powers expressly granted

1st ISSUE – PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION

I. Delegation to

Administrative Bodies

By Legislative Act – authorizing it to promulgate rules and regulations By implication – necessary to the efficient exercise of the powers expressly granted

PASEI V TORRES

212 SCRA 298

FACTS

DOLE SEC. RUBEN TORRES- as a result of the published stories regarding abuses suffered by Filipino housemaids in Hong Kong, issued Department

Order No. 16 temporarily suspending recruitment by private employment agencies of “Filipino helpers going to HK”

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. (PASEI) - filed for prohibition on the grounds that

1. Respondents acted in excess of their rule making authority2.

Circulars are contrary to constitution, are unreasonable, unfair and oppressive

HELD

a. Art 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement activities. Department Order

No. 16 merely restricted the scope of petitioner’s business operations by excluding therefrom recruitment and deployment of domestic helpers forHong Kong till after the establishment of the “mechanisms” that will enhance the protection of Filipino domestic helpers going to HK

b.

Circulars are valid exercise of the police power as delegated to the executive branch of the Government


13/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CE

SANTIAGO V COMELEC

270 SCRA 106

FACTS

Comelec Resolution No 2300 – was issued to govern “the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and Initiative and Referendum and National and Local

Laws”

Sen Miriam Santiago- argues that Comelec resoslution 2300 is ultra vires since only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementinglaw pursuant to Art. XVII, Sec 2(2) which provides thus, “The Congress shall provide for the implementation of this right”

HELD

a. Comelec does not have the power under RA 6725 to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the right of the people to directly propose

amendments to the Constitution through initiative

b. Reliance on Sec 2(1) Art IX-C Constitution is misplaced for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by Comelec underSec 3 Art IX-C and a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the completeness and the sufficient standard tests

2ND

ISSUE – VALIDITY OF DELEGATION

I. COMPLETENESS TEST a. Statute is complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves legislature b. So that there will be nothing left for delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it

Illustrative Case US v Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1 – Legislature did not specify under what conditions the rules may be

issued and did not define what constitutes extraordinary increase in price of cereals. Promulgation ofrules is left to sole discretion of Governor General Law thus it is incomplete as a legislation

II. SUFFICIENT STANDARD

TEST

a. Statutes fixes a standard, mapping out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority

b.

By defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected

Illustrative Case Ynot v IAC 148 SCRA 659 – one searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable

guideline, or better still, the limitations that said officers must observe when they make theirdistribution. There is none

I. COMPLETENESS TEST Statute is complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves legislature so that there will be nothing left for delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it

US. V. ANG TANG HO

43 Phil 1

FACTS

Act No 2868 (1919) – authorizes Governor – General to issue and promulgate rules ‘”whenever, for any case, conditions arise resulting in extraordinary rise

in price of palay, rice or corn”

Governor General - pursuant there, issue EO 53 fixing the price at which rice should be soldAng Tang Ho – was charged with the sale price greater than that fixed by EO 53. He was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to 5 months

imprisonment plus P500.00 fine. He appealed the sentence countering that there is undue delegation of power to the Governor GeneralHELD

a. Promulgation of rules is left to the discretion of the Governor General. Legislature did not define under what conditions the rules may be issued

b. Legislature also does not define what constitutes extraordinary increase in price of cereals. Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon

which the proclamation should be issued,

II. SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST Statute fixes a standard, mapping out boundaries of delegated authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected

YNOT V IAC

148 SCRA 659

FACTS

EO 626-A - prohibits inter-provincial transportation of carabaos, and provides further that such, “carabao transported violation thereof shall be subject to

confiscation and forfeiture by government, and that the confiscated property shall be distributed to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of

Animal Industry may see fit”

RESTITUTO YNOT – on January 13, 1984, transported 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo in a pump boat. His carabaos were confiscated by the police forviolation of EO 626-A

YNOT – filed a suit for recovery with RTC-Iloilo, which sustained the confiscation. On appeal, IAC, upheld RTC. Thus Ynot went to SC contending thatEO 626-A is unconstitutional

HELD

a.

That phrase “may see fit” is an extremely generous and dangerous condition. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, even

corruption. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guideline, or better still, the limitations that said officers must observe

when they make their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless


14/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CF

b. There is an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution ofthe properties arbitrarily taken.

3RD

ISSUE – VALIDITY OF EXERCISE

1. Not inconsistent with the

constitution

Constitutional Provisions Controlwhat rules and regulations may be

promulgated by administrative

bodies

DAR V SUTTON GR NO 162070 Oct 19 2005 – DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted bythe Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform

2.

Not inconsistent with statute Statutory provisions control whatrules and regulations may be

promulgated by administrative bodies

SOL GEN V MMA 204 scra 837 – PD 1605 (granting MMC powers related to traffic management and control in Manila) does

not allow either removal of licenses plates or confiscation ofdriver’s licenses for traffic violations. MMA Ordinance imposes

sanctions PD 1605 does not allow and actually prohibits.

3. Cannot amend act of Congress May not amend, alter, modify,supplant, enlarge or expand, restrict

or limit the provisions or coverage

of the statute

BOIE- Takeda V DE LA SERNA 228 SCRA 329 - inincluding commissions in the computation of the 13 th month pay,

DOLE unduly expanded the concept of “basic salary” as defined

in PD 851. Implementing rules, cannot add or detract from the

provisions of the law it is designated to implement.

4.

Cannot exceed Provisions of

Basic Law

They must be within the scope and

purview of the statutory authority

granted by legislature

UNITED BFHA V BF HOMES 310 SCRA 304 – There was a

clear attempt to unduly expand the provisions of PD 902-A. The

inclusion of the phrase “GENERAL PUBLIC OR OTHERENTITY” is a matter which HIGC cannot legally do

5.

Not unreasonable, unfair or

discriminatory

They must not act arbitrarily and

capriciously in promulgating rules

and regulations

LUPANGCO V CA 160 SCRA 848 – PRC Resolution is not

only unreasonable but arbitrary, it infringes on the examinees

right to liberty granted by the constitution

1. Not inconsistent with

Constitution

Constitutional provisions control what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative

bodies

DAR VS SUTTON

GR NO 162070 OCT 19 2005

FACTS

The Suttons (Delia, Ella, Harry) – in 1987, voluntarily offer to sell (VOD) to DAR their landholdings

Luz Farms v Sec of DAR - in 1990 SCR ruled that lands devoted to livestock and poultry – raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land.Thus, the Suttons filed request to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle raising

DAR Administrative Order No 9 - issued Dec 27, 1993, provided that only portions of private agricultural lands was used for the raising, of livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of CARL

HELD

a. AO No 9 is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. AO sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform

and prescribing maximum retention limit for their ownership

b. DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has

exceeded its power in issuing the assailed AO

2. Not inconsistent with Statute Statutory provisions control what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative bodies

SOL GEN v MM

204 SCRA 837

FACTS

MTC V Ganong GR No 91023 July 13, 1990 - SC held that confiscation of license plates for traffic violations was not among the sanctions MMC couldimpose under PD 1605. Even confiscation of driver’s licenses was not prescribed nor was it allowed to be imposed by MMC

Motorists - complained to the Court, on various dates (1990-1991), on the confiscation of their driver’s licenses and removal of license plate numbers oftheir vehicles

MMA – contended that since Goong decision said that confiscation of license plate was invalid in the absence of valid law or ordinance, MMA Ordinance No. 11 was issued, authorizing itself “to detach license plate of motor vehicles… obstructing flow of traffic in metro manila”

Solicitor General – viewed said ordinance as invalid exercise of delegated legislative power

HELD


15/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CG

a. PD 1605 does not allow either removal of license plates or confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic violations committed in Metro Manila.Ordinances in question does not merely add to requirement of PF 1605 but, worse, impose sanctions the decree does not allow and in fact actually

prohibits

b.

In so doing, ordinances, disregard and violate and in effect partially repeal the law

3. Cannot amend Act of Congress May not amend, alter, modify, supplant, enlarge or expand, restrict or limit the provisions or coverageof the statute

BOIE-TAKED V DELA SERNA228 SCRA 329

FACTS:

PD 851 – required all employers to pay their employees basic salary of not more than P1,000.00 a month, 13th month pay

DOLE Implementing Guidelines- included “”commissions” in the computations of the 13th month pay

BOIE- Takeda Chemicals - did not include commissions of its medical representatives in the computation of their 13month pay. Thus it was ordered byDOLE to pay the differential. BOIE- Takeda argues that PD 851 and its implementing rules speak of BASIC salary and therefore exclude all other

remunerations which are not part of the BASIC salary

HELD:

a. In including commissions in the computation of 13th month pay, DOLE unduly expanded concept of “basic salary” as defined in PD 851

b.

Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of the law it is designed to implement. They cannot widen its scope. Administrativeagency cannot amend on Act of Congress

4. Cannot Exceed Provisions of

Basic Law

They must be within the scope and purview of the statutory authority granted by legislature

UBFHAI V BF HOMES

310 SCRA 304

FACTS

PD 902-A - vested Home Insurance Guarantee Corp. (HIGC) with jurisdiction over homeowners’ dispute controversies arising “between such association

and the state, insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exists as such entity”

HIGC’s Revised Rules of Procedure – the phrase “general public or other entity” was added

HELD

a. HIGC went beyond authority provided by the law when it promulgated the revised rules of procedure. There was clear attempt to unduly expandthe provisions of Presidential Decree 902-A

b. The inclusion of the phrase GENERAL PUBLIC OR OTHER ENTITY is a matter which HIGC cannot legally do. The rule- making power of a public administrative body is delegated legislative power, which it may not use either to abridge the authority given it by Congress or theConstitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended.

5. Not unreasonable, unfair or

discriminatory

Administrative bodies must not act arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating rules and regulations

LUPANGCO v CA

160 SCRA 848

FACTS

PRC Resolution NO 105 - prohibits examinee from attending any review class or receiving any hand-out or review material 3 days before the examinationday, and provides sanctions for its violation. One who is caught committing the prohibited act is barred from taking future examinations

Lupo Lupangco, etal. - reviews for the licenses examinations in accountancy filed with RTC- Manila, an injunction against PRC and to declare the sameunconstitutional. RTC declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. PRC appealed to CA, which reversed the decision of RTC. Hence, the peti tion to SC

HELD

a. PRC Resolution No 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also infringes on the examinees’ right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution

b. PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. It is inconceivablehow PRC can manage to have watchful eye on each and every examinee during the 3 days.


16/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CH

PENAL RULES & REGULATIONS

! Refer to those carrying penal or criminal sanctions for violation of rules and regulations

! Lawmaking body cannot delegate to an administrative agency the power to declare what acts should constitute criminal offense and how shall it be

punished

! Prescribing of penalties is a legislative function. However, Congress may validly provide in the law itself for the imposition of the penalty for violation of

rules and regulations which it has empowered administrative authorities to enact

! Publication (15 days following completion in Official Gazette) is necessary because such rules contain penal provisions, thus, the people must be officially

informed

General Rule: power to punish and define crimes cannot be delegated essentially within the legislature.

I legislative act cannot be delegated. WHY?

o Delegation of discretion = power to fill in details: NOT ALLOWED

Exceptions: REQUISITES

1. Law which authorizes promulgation of R&R must itself be declared as punishable the violation of rules and regulations issued thereunder2.

Must define and fix penalty for violation of R&R

3. Published in official gazette

Format:

1. Law2. Admin R&R3.

Violation

4.

Imposition of Penalty

QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER

Definition

• Power to determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by law

• The exercise of such power is only incidental to their main function of enforcing the law

3 Elements of Adjudicatory Powers

1. That there must be a specific controversy involving rights of the persons or property and said controversy involving rights of persons and

property and said controversy is brought before a tribunal, board or officer for hearing and determination of their respective rights and obligations

2. The tribunal, board or officer before whom the controversy is brought must have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and render a

decision on the controversy construing and applying the laws to that end.

3. The T, B, O must pertain to that branch of the sovereign power which belongs to the judiciary, or at least which does not belong to the legislative

or executive department

# CASES: President Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v CA, RTC Judge Guadiz, Karamfil Import Export Co

• Facts: PD 1936 amended by PD 2002 - assigned PADS to investigate and prosecute so-called "dollar salting" activities in the country

• The application for the issuance of said search warrants was filed by Atty. Napoleon Gatmaytan of the Bureau of Customs who is a

deputized member of the PADS Task Force. Attached to the said application is the affidavit of Josefin M. Castro who is an operative and

investigator of the PADS Task Force. Said Josefin M. Castro is likewise the sole deponent in the purported deposition to support the

application for the issuance of the six (6) search warrants involved in this case.

• Held: The court ruled that PADS was not granted by law to issue a warrant of arrest.

• It is the basic function of these bodies to adjudicate claims and/or to determine rights, and unless its decision are seasonably appealed to

the proper reviewing authorities, the same attain finality and become executory.

• The Task Force was not meant to exercise quasi-judicial functions, that is, to try and decide claims and execute its judgments. As the President's arm called upon to combat the vice of

"dollar salting" or the black marketing and salting of foreign exchange, it is tasked alone by the Decree to handle the prosecution of such activities, but nothing more

• To permit him to issue search warrants and indeed, warrants of arrest, is to make him both judge and jury in his own right, when he is

neither. That makes, to our mind and to that extent, Presidential Decree No. 1936 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2002,

unconstitutional.

# Eduardo Cojuanco Jr. v PCGG


17/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CJ

• President Corazon C. Aquino directed the Solicitor General to prosecute all persons involved in the misuse of coconut levy funds. Pursuant

to the above directive the Solicitor General created a task force to conduct a thorough study of the possible involvement of all persons in the

anomalous use of coconut levy funds.

• Upon the creation of the PCGG under EO. 1 issued by President Aquino, the PCGG was charged with the task of assisting the President not

only in the recovery of ill gotten wealth or unexplained wealth accumulated by the former President, his immediate family, relatives,

subordinates and close associates but also in the investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President may assign to the

Commission from time to time and to prevent a repetition of the same in the future.

• Petitioner alleges that the PCGG may not conduct a preliminary investigation of the complaints filed by the Solicitor General without

violating petitioner's rights to due process and equal protection of the law, and that the PCGG has no right to conduct such preliminaryinvestigation

• Held: Considering that the PCGG, like the courts, is vested with the authority to grant provisional remedies of (1) sequestration, (2)

freezing assets, and (3) provisional takeover, it is indispensable that, as in the case of attachment and receivership, there exists a prima facie

factual foundation, at least, for the sequestration order, freeze order or takeover order, an adequate and fair opportunity to contest it and

endeavor to cause its negation or nullification.

•

The general power of investigation vested in the PCGG may be divided into two stages. The first stage of investigation which is called the

criminal investigation stage is the fact finding inquiring which is usually conducted by the law enforcement agents whereby they gather

evidence and interview witnesses after which they assess the evidence and if they find sufficient basis, file the complaint for the purpose of

preliminary investigation.

• The second stage is the preliminary investigation stage of the said complaint. It is at this stage, as above discussed, where it is ascertained if

there is sufficient evidence to bring a person to trial.

• One cannot be a prosecutor and a judge at the same time

# Teodoro Santiago Jr. v Ms. Juanita Bautista

• Facts: The appellant was a grade 6 pupil in Sero Elementary School. As the school year was then about to end, the "Committee On the

Rating Of Students For Honor" was constituted by the teachers concerned at said school for the purpose of selecting the "honor students" of

its graduating class.

• With the school Principal, as chairman, and the members of the committee deliberated and finally adjudged Socorro Medina, Patricia Liñgat

and Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as first, second and third honors, respectively. The school's graduation exercises were thereafter set for May

21, 1965; but 3 days before that date, the "third placer" Teodoro Santiago, Jr., represented by his mother, and with his father as counsel,

sought the invalidation of the "ranking of honor students" thus made, by instituting the above-mentioned civil case in the CFI of Cotabato,

committee members along with the District Supervisor and the Academic Supervisor of the place.

• Held: It is not essential that the proceedings should be strictly and technically judicial, in the sense in which that word is used when applied

to the courts of justice, but it is sufficient if they are quasi judicial. It is enough if the officers act judicially in making their decision,

whatever may be their public character

• It is evident, upon the foregoing authorities, that the so called committee on the rating of students for honor (Service Manual for Teachers)

whose actions are questioned in this case exercised neither judicial nor quasi judicial functions in the performance of its assigned task.

• Nothing on record about any rule of law that provides that when teachers sit down to assess the individual merits of their pupils for purposes

of rating them for honors, such function involves the determination of what the law is and that they are therefore automatically vested with

judicial or quasi judicial functions.

• It is the nature of the act to be performed, rather than the office, board or body which performs it, that determines whether or not it is

exercising judicial/quasi judicial function

3 Steps to Exercise Quasi-Judicial Power

1.

Submit position paper: to know the facts of the case

2. Determine applicable law, know legal rights of the party

3.

Adjudication / Decision

Administrative Function vs Quasi-Judicial Function

Administrative or Ministerial

Function

Quasi-Judicial Function

- one which an officer or tribunal

performs in the context of a given setof facts in a prescribed manner and

- one which applies to the actions,

discretion of public administrativeofficers or bodies that are required to


18/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CK

without regard to the exercise of hisown judgment upon the propriety or

the impropriety of the act done

investigate facts or ascertain theexistence of facts, hold hearings,

weigh evidence and draw

conclusions from them as basis fortheir official action and exercise of

discretion in a judicial nature (SmartComm v NTC)

# CASES: Smart Communications, Pilipino Telecom v NTC

•

Facts: Petitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the NTC, an action for declaration of nullity of

NTC Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 (the Billing Circular).

• Petitioners allege that the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction

belongs to the DTI under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the Billing Circular is oppressive, confiscatory and violative of the constitutional

prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law; that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the

prepaid cellular service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the requirements of

identification of prepaid card buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable.

• Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio.

• Held: 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.

• The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is

within the jurisdiction of the regular courts

•

The administrative body exercises its quasi judicial function when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an

executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of

the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it

# Pedro Guerzon v CA, Bureau of Energy Utilization, Caasi Jr., Pilipinas Shell

• Facts: Petitioner executed with Basic Landoil Energy Corp (later acquired by Shell) a “Service Station Lease” for the use and operation of

Shell’s properties (fuel pumps, air compressor) for 5 years and “Dealer’s Sales Contract”. Respondent Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU)

approved the latter contract and issued a Certificate of Authority

in Petitioner’s favour

• After the contract, respondent Shell wrote Guerzon informing him that they are not renewing the contract. A copy of said letter was

furnished to BEU. Thereafter, BEU issued an order directing petitioner to vacate the premises and to show cause in writing why no

administrative order and/or criminal proceedings shall be instituted for his violations.

•

Shell was able to secure the possession of the gas station. Guerzon then filed with the RTC a complaint but such was dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction to annul the order of a quasi-judicial body of equivalent category as the RTC.

• Held: The power of an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted (here PD 1206) to it by law and those that are

necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. Said PD states that after notice and hearing, it can impose and collect a fine and failure to pay

the fine or to cease and discontinue the violation of the law (i.e. illegal trading in petroleum products) shall be sufficient reason for

suspension, closure or stoppage of operations.

• Nowhere in the order is it stated that petitioner engaged in illegal trading or any other violation of BP 33. It merely made a vague reference

to “violation of BEU laws, rules and regulation”. The BEU (like its predecessor, the Oil Industry Commission) has no power to decide

contractual disputes between gasoline dealers and oil companies.

• It cannot order petitioner to vacate the premises as this is an appropriate case in the civil courts for unlawful detainer. Assuming arguendo

that it did had the authority, it still failed to comply with the requirement of notice and hearing.

# Antipolo Realty Corp v NHA, Gen. Manager Tobias, Virgilio Yuson

•

Facts: Jose Hernando acquired ownership over Lot. No. 15, Block IV of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision from the Antipolo Realty. Mr.

Hernando transferred his rights over Lot No. 15 to Virgilio Yuson. However, for failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the subdivision

project. Yuson paid only the arrears pertaining to the period up to, and including the month of August 1972 and stopped all monthly

installments due thereafter. In October 1976, the President of AR sent a notice to Yuson advising that the required improvements in the

subdivision had been completed and requesting resumption of payment of monthly instalments on Lot 15.

• Yuson refused to pay the Sep 1972-Oct 1976 monthly instalments but agreed to pay the post Oct 1976 installments. AR responded by

rescinding the Contract to Sell and claiming forfeiture of all instalment previously made.

• NHA ordered reinstatement of the CTS. AR questioned jurisdiction of NHA but it was denied.

•

Held: NHA has jurisdiction. Admin agencies exercise and perform adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited extent only.

Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative agencies is well recognized in our jurisdiction, basically because


19/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

CL

the need for special competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of complex or specialized

character and because of a companion recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged.

Different classification of AP with examples: memorize

1. Enabling powers

•

Refer to those powers granted to permit or allow something which the law undertakes to regulate to be done by their approval.

• The chief application of this power is in the granting or denial of licenses to engage in a particular business or occupation.

• Examples:

o Power of the Board of Transportation to issue certificates of public convenience or necessity.

o Power of SEC to permit the issuance of securities

o

Powers of Phil Patent Office to issue patents and copyrights, and register trade-marks and trade names

o Power of Central Bank to license Banks

2. Directing powers

•

These include the powers of abstract determination – such as definition, valuation, classification and fact finding – and dispensing,

examining and summary powers

•

Examples:

o Corrective powers of Public Utility Commissions

o Powers of assessment under the revenue and assessment laws

o Reparations under Public Utility Laws

o Awards under the workmen’s compensation laws

3.

Dispensing powers

• Authority to exempt from or relax a general prohibition

• Example:

o Authority of zoning boards to vary the provisions of a zoning statute or ordinance.

• To relieve from an affirmative duty.

•

Example:

o Authority of Public Service commission to permit the abandonment of service by carriers.

4. Summary powers

•

Those that apply compulsion or force against person or property to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such

action. Usually without notice and hearing.

• Examples:

o Abatement of nuisance, summary destraint, levy of property of delinquent tax payers

5. Equitable powers

• 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.

•

Examples:

o Power to appoint a receiver, power to issue injunctions

Chapter 5: Administrative Proceedings

Functions

! Primarily administrative and power to hear and determine controversies is granted as an incident to the administrative duty

Where do they derive their powers?! Law itself

! Art. 8, Sec. 5, par. 5

! Necessary implication

Characteristics

1. Adversary in nature – the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it; primary

purpose is to protect public interests

2. Quasi judicial or judicial

a) taking and weighing of evidence


20/26

!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 567!-3 89:69;98 )%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(

DM

b) determination of facts based upon evidence presented

c) rendering an order or decision supported by facts presented

3. Civil, not criminal

4. Not an action at law – not a litigation

5. Rules of Court – applies suppletorily

6. Technicalities

7. SC may modify the rules

8. Quantum of proof is substantial evidence

Cardinal Principles

1. Right to hearing

2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented

3. Decision must have something to support itself

4. Evidence must be substantial

5. Decision based on evidence presented

6. Board or judge must act on its own

7. Decision must be rendered in a manner that all parties can know the issues and reason for such decision

v _ CASES: Bantolino vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers

Ø _Court ruled that although the affiants had not been presented to affirm the contents of their affidavits and be cross-examined, their affidavits may begiven evidentiary value; the argument that such affidavits were hearsay was not persuasive

Ø _To reiterate, administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law.

Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character andeffect.

Ø _A criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different from that of an administrative proceeding. Under the Rules of the Commission, theLabor Arbiter is given the discretion to determine the necessity of a formal trial or hearing.

Ø _Hence, trial-type hearings are not even required as the cases may be decided based on verified position papers, with supporting documents and their

affidavits

Lepanto Cosolidated vs. Dumapis

Ø _Evidence is not substantial to hold respondents guilty of highgrading so as to warrant the dismissal of respondents.

Ø _While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases,this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must at least have a

modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value.

Ø _Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere

scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might a

admin finals reviewer 2

Documents