cruz reviewer

7/25/2019 Cruz Reviewer

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cruz-reviewer 1/20

PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

By

Carlo L. Cruz

Chapter 1

General Considerations

Nature

Administrative Law – that branch of modern law under which the

executive department of the government, acting in a quasi-legislative or

quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for

the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community.

Administrative law is a recent development, being a consequence of the

ever increasing complexities of society and the proliferation of problems of

government that cannot readily or effectively be addressed by the public

agencies or solved by other disciplines of public law.

It was felt that the legislative and judicial departments no longer had

either the time or the needed expertise to attend to these new problems.

Thus, the obvious solution wasdelegation of power.

Two major powers of the administrative agency: 1.

Quasi-legislative authority– or rule making power

1



2. Quasi-judicial power – or adjudicatory function

Sources of Administrative Law

Administrative law is derived from four sources or is of four (4) kinds:

1.Constitution or statutory enactments – e.g. Social Security Act which

established the Social Security Commission.

2.Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of administrative bodies

3.Rules and regulations issued by the administrative bodies – e.g.

Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

4.Determinations and orders of the administrative bodies in the

settlement of controversies

Administration

Administration is understood in two senses:

1.Institution – administration as the aggregate of individuals in whose

hands the reins of government are for the time being.

2.Function – administration as the actual running of the government by the

executive authorities through the enforcement of laws and implementation

of policies.

Government (as distinguished from administration) is the agency or

instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated,

expressed and realized.

Administration Distinguished from Law

2



Law is impersonal command provided with sanctions to be applied in

case of violation, while Administrationis preventive rather punitive and

is accepted to be more personal than law.

Law maintains a watchful eye on those who would violate its order. While administration on the other hand seeks to spare individuals from

punishments of the law by persuading him to observe its commands.

Chapter 2

Administrative Agencies

Definition

Administrative agency – a body endowed with quasi-legislative and

quasi-judicial powers for the purpose of enabling it to carry out the laws

entrusted to it for enforcement or execution.

3



Administrative agency may be regarded as an arm of the legislature insofar

as it is authorize to promulgate rules. It may also be loosely considered a

court because it performs functions of a particular judicial character, as when it decides factual and sometimes even legal questions as an incident

of its general power of regulation.

Creation and Abolition

The administrative body may be created by theConstitution or by a

Statute.

If created by the Constitution itself, the administrative body can be

altered or abolished only by Constitution. But where the body was created

only by statute, the legislature that breathed life into it can amend or

even repeal its charter, thereby resulting in its abolition which is justified

if made in good faith.

Chapter 3

Powers of Administrative Agencies

Quasi-Legislative Power – the authority delegated by the law-making

body to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended

to carry out the provisions of a law and implement legislative policy.

Quasi-Judicial Power – the power of the administrative authorities to

make determinations of facts in the performance of their official duties

and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts so found.

Chapter 4

The Quasi-Legislative Power

4



It has already been remarked that the rule-making power of the

administrative body is intended to enable it to implement the policy of

the law and to provide for the more effective enforcement of its

provisions.

Through the exercise of this power of subordinate legislation, it is possible

for the administrative body to transmit the “active power of the

State from its source to the point of application,” that is, apply the law

and so fulfill the mandate of the legislature.

Kinds of Administrative Regulations

(a)Legislative –the administrative agency is acting in a legislative

capacity, supplementing the statute, filling in the details, or “making

the law”, and usually acting pursuant to a specific delegation of

legislative power.

(b)Interpretative – are those which purport to do no more than

interpret the statute being administered, to say what it means. They

constitute the administrator's construction of a statute.

The interpretative regulation is issued by the administrative body as an

incident to its power to enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify

its provisions for proper observance by the people.

It is an elementary rule in administrative law thatadministrative

regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to

interpret which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law,

are entitled to great respect, and have in their favor a presumption of

legality.

By contrast, thelegislative regulation is issued by the administrative

body pursuant to a valid delegation of legislative power and is

intended to have the binding the force and effect of a law enacted by

the legislature itself.

5



Classification of Legislative Regulation

(a)Supplementary –intended to fill in the details of the law and “to make

explicit what is only general.”

(b)Contingent –issued upon the happening of a certain contingency

which the administrative body is given the discretion to determine or to

ascertain some circumstances and on the basis thereof may enforce or

suspend the operation of a law.

Requisites of Administrative Regulation

(a)Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature;

(b)It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature;

(c)It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;

(d)it must be reasonable.

First Requisite: Promulgation Must Be Authorized by the

Legislature

Authority to promulgate the regulation is usually conferred by the

Charter itself of the administrative body or by the law it is supposed to

enforce.

When Congress authorizes promulgation of administrative rules and

regulations to implement given legislation, all that is required is that the

regulation be not in contravention with it, but to conform to the standards

that the law prescribes.

Second Requisite: Regulation Must Be Within the Scope of the

Authority Given by the Legislature

Assuming a valid authorization, it is still necessary that the regulation

promulgated must not be ultra vires or beyond the authority conferred.

6



Third Requisite: Regulation Must Be Promulgated in Accordance with

the Prescribed Procedure

As in the enactment of laws, the promulgation of administrative

regulations of general application does not require previous notice andhearing, the only exception being where the legislature itself requires it.

In the absence of such a requirement, the administrative body can

promulgate the regulation in its exclusive discretion.

But where the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy

between specific parties, it is considered an administrative adjudication

and so will require notice and hearing.

As for publication, the applicable rule is now found in Executive Order

No. 200 which provides that laws “shall take effect after fifteen (15) days

following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette

or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is

otherwise provided.”

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is,

regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the

public, need not be published.

Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is

to inform the public of the contents of the law.

The Supreme Court, it would seem, requires publication of the

administrative regulation only if it is of general application and penal in

nature.

Fourth Requisite: Regulation Must Be Reasonable

Like statutes, administrative regulations promulgated thereunder mustnot be unreasonable or arbitrary as to violate due process.

Penal Regulations

The power to define and punish crime is exclusively legislative and may

not be delegated to the administrative authorities. While administrative

7



regulations may have the force and effect of law, their violation cannot

give rise to criminal prosecution unless the legislature makes such

violation punishable and imposes the corresponding sanctions.

Special requisites of a valid administrative regulation with a penal

sanction:

(a)The law itself must make violation of the administrative regulation

punishable;

(b)The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of

the regulation;

(c)The regulation must be published.

Construction and Interpretation

Regulation should be read in harmony with the statute and not in

violation of the authority conferred on the administrative authorities.

The administrative regulation that contravenes the statute is, of course,

invalid.

Enforcement

It is established that the power to promulgate administrative regulations

carries with it the implied power to enforce them. This may be effected

through judicial action or through sanctions that the statute itself may

allow the administrative body to impose.

Amendment or Repeal

Like the statute, the administrative regulation promulgated thereunder is

subject to amendment or repeal by the authorities that promulgated them

in the first place. Of course, it may be changed directly by the legislature.

Chapter 5

The Quasi-Judicial Power

8



Quasi-judicial power –is the power of the administrative agency to

determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in

accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself.

The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power requires compliance with

two conditions, to wit:

(1)Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body

(2)Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings

A. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction –may be simply defined as the competence of an office or

body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question.

Without jurisdiction, the determination made by the administrative bodies

are absolutely null and without any legal effect whatsoever.

It is the legislature that has the power to confer jurisdiction upon the

administrative body and so limit or expand its authority.

It can be said that each administrative body has its own peculiar

jurisdiction as conferred upon it by the specific provisions of its charter.

The law may allow some administrative bodies to award certain kinds of

damages while denying the same power, for no apparent reason, to other

administrative bodies.

For example, the SEC and NLRC are allowed to award damages virtually

to the same extent as a court of justice. Yet similar authority has not

been conferred by its charter to NTC.

It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly empowered,

administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial power.

9



1.Rules of Procedure

Where an administrative body is expressly granted the power of

adjudication, it is deemed also vested with the implied power to prescribethe rules to be observed in the conduct of its proceedings.

But to be valid, the rules must not violate fundamental rights or encroach

upon constitutional prerogatives.

2.The Subpoena Power

The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent

in administrative bodies.

It is settled that administrative bodies may summon witnesses and require

the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and always only

in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate. Unless

otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke

the aid or Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested

case falls. The Court may punish customacy or refusal as contempt.

The Supreme Court distinguished between the power to “investigate” and

the power to “adjudicate:”

“The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to

learn, and obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the

notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involve in the facts

inquired into by application of the law x x.

In the legal sense, “adjudicate” means to settle in the exercise of judicial

authority x x. “Adjudge” x x implies a judicial determination of a fact,

and the entry of judgment.”

3. The Contempt Power

10



Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for contempt is essentially

judicial and cannot be claimed as an inherent right by the administrative

body.

To be validly exercised, it must be expressly conferred upon the body and,

additionally, must be used only in connection with its quasi-judicial as

distinguished from its purely administrative or routinary functions.

As a rule, where, say, a subpoena of the administrative body is

disregarded, the person summoned may not be directly discipline by that

body. The proper remedy id for the administrative body to seek assistance

of the courts of justice for the enforcement of its order.

The power to hold in contempt must be exercised not on the vindictive,

but on the preservative principle.

B. Notice and Hearing

The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-

observance will as a rule invalidate the administrative proceedings.

Persons are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting their

interests so that, if they are minded, they may claim the right to appear

therein and present their side or refute the position of opposing parties.

Nevertheless, there are instances when notice and hearing can validly be

omitted. Among the justifications for such omissions are the urgency of

immediate action (which does not preclude the enjoyment of the right at a

later time without prejudice to the person affected) and the fact that the

right had previously been offered but not claimed.

1. Administrative Due Process

While administrative determinations of contested case are by their

nature judicial, there is no requirement for strict adherence to technical

rules as are observed in truly judicial proceedings.

11



It is a general rule that they are unrestricted by the technical or formal

rules of procedure which govern trials before a court. This rule is applied

to questions of evidence, pleading and other matters.

Nevertheless, it is essential that due process must be observed, for the

requirements of fair play are not applicable to judicial proceedings only.

Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administrative proceedings:

a.the first of these rights is the right to a hearing;

b.the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;

c.the tribunal must have something to support its decision;

d.evidence must be substantial evidence – relevant evidence that

a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion

e. the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at

the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the

parties;

f. the court must act on its or their own independent

consideration of the law and facts of controversy, and not simply accept

the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision;

g. the court should render its decision in such a manner that the

parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the

reasons for the decisions rendered.

It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the administrative

question be impartial, to ensure a fair decision.

The law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of the

decision of the board.

In M.F. Violago Oiler Tank Trucks vs. NLRC, there was no denial of due

process where the petitioners received notice of the scheduled

investigation the day before said date of the hearing or investigation but

12



failed to present evidence. On the other hand, there was clearly such a

denial where it appears that a decision rendered against a person who

was not a party to or even notified of the proceedings taken before a labor

arbiter.

C.Administrative Appeals and review

Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order, an appeal from a

final decision of the administrative agency may be taken to the

department head, whose decision may further be brought to the regular

courts of justice, in accordance with the procedure specified by law

D.Enforcement of Decision

In the absence of any statute providing for the enforcement of an

administrative determination, the same cannot be enforced except

possibly by appeal to the force of public opinion.

Usually, however, the administrative body is allowed certain sanctions that

it may impose directly for the enforcement of its own decisions, i.e.

revocation of or refusal to renew licenses, destruction of unlawful articles,

summary closure of stores, refusal to grant clearances, issuance of cease

and desist orders, detention and deportation of aliens, and imposition of

fines.

Significantly, many administrative bodies, such as the SEC and the

NLRC, have been vested with authority to grant provisional reliefs, such

as writs of preliminary attachment or injunction, intended to ensure the

enforcement of their adjudications.

It is established that administrative agencies who have not been

conferred the power to enforce their quasi-judicial decisions may invokecourt action for the purpose.

E. Res Judicata

13



The general rule is that an administrative decision is not considered res

judicata so as to preclude its subsequent reconsideration or revocation.

Decisions of the previous incumbents of the administrative body may be

modified or reversed by their successors in the exercise of their own

powers of adjudication.

Where the administrative decision has been affirmed by a court decision,

the doctrine of res judicata is applicable. The effect of res judicata

attaches to the judgment of the reviewing court rather than to the

administrative judgment.

This rule has however been modified in this jurisdiction.

It is now well-settled in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders

of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial

authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final

judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.

This principle is, however, not applicable to all administrative

proceedings, such proceedings that are non-litigious and summary in

nature without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in courts of la

Chapter 6

Judicial Review

General Rules

An administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice only

if the Constitution or the law permits it or if the question to be reviewed

is a question of law.

However, jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Supreme Court

has applied the exceptions rather than the rule.

In the case of the constitutional commission, i.e., the Commission on

Elections, the Commission on Audit, and the Civil Service Commission, it

14



is provided that “any decision order or ruling of each Commission may be

brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within

30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.”

On the basis of Sec. 16 of the Interim Rules and Guideline implementing

Sec. 9 (3) of BP Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals may “review final decisions,

orders, awards or resolutions or regional trial courts and of all quasi-

judicial bodies, except the Commission on Elections, the Commission on

Audit, the Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under the Labor Code of

the Philippines and by the Central Board of

Assessment Appeals.”

Other appeals are prescribed by special laws, such as RA No. 1125,

providing for appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered

by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs,

or any provincial or city board of assessment appeals.

Methods of review

The methods of judicial review are prescribed by the Constitution,

statutes or the Rules of the Court. These methods may be specific or

general.

It is provided in RA No. 5434 that an appeal from a final award, order or

decisions of the Patent Office shall be taken by filing with said body and

with the Court of Appeals a notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of

such award, order or ruling, copies being served on all interested parties.

The Administrative Code generally provides that an appeal from an

agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15

days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the

reviewing court a petition for review of the order. Copies of the petition

shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record.

The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and

the grounds relied upon for the review, and shall be accompanied with a

true copy of the order appealed from, together with copies of such

material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other

supporting papers.

15



The Supreme Court instructed certain universally accepted axioms

governing judicial review through the extraordinary actions of certiorari

or prohibition of determinations of administrative officers or agencies:

First, before said actions may be entertained, it must be shown that all

the administrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been

exhausted; and,

Second, that the administrative decision may properly be annulled or set

aside only upon a clear showing that the administrative official or tribunal

has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with a grave abuse of

discretion.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort

There are two doctrines that must be considered in connection with the

judicial review of administrative decisions:(1) doctrine of primary

jurisdiction or prior resort; and (2) the doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction simply calls for the

determination of administrative questions, which ordinarily

questions of fact, by administrative agencies rather courts of

justice.

If the case is such that its determination requires the expertise,

specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies

because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved,

then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding

before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter

is within the proper jurisdiction of the court

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Under thedoctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,an

administrative decision must first be appealed to the

administrative superior up to the highest level before it may be

elevated to a court of justice for review.

16



A. Reasons

(1)The administrative superiors, if given the opportunity, can correct

the errors committed by their subordinates;

(2)Courts should as much as possible refrain from disturbing the

findings of administrative bodies in deference to the doctrine of

separation of powers;

(3)On practical grounds, it is best that the courts should not be

saddled with the review of administrative cases;

(4)Judicial review of administrative cases is usually effected through

the special civil actions of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition,

which are available only if there is no other plain, speedy and

adequate remedy.

B. Exceptions

(1)When the question raised is purely legal (question of law is involved);

(2)When the administrative body is estoppel;

(3)When the act complained of is patently illegal;

(4)When there is urgent need for judicial intervention;

(5)When the claim involved is small;

(6)When irreparable damage will be suffered;

(7)When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

(8)When strong public interest is involved;

(9)When the subject of the controversy is private land;

17



(10)In quo warranto proceedingsC.

Appeal to the President

Of special interest is the question of whether or not a decision of the

cabinet member has to be appealed first to the President before it may be

brought to a court of justice. Jurisprudence on this matter is rather

indecisive.

In the early case ofDemaisip vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that

appeal to the President was not necessary because the Cabinet member

was after all his alter ego and, under the doctrine of qualified political

agency, the acts of the secretary were the acts of the President.

This view was abandoned inCalo vs. Fuertes, where it was held that

appeal to the President was the final step in the administrative process

and therefore a condition precedent to appeal to the courts.

InBartulata vs. Peralta, however, the court reinstated the Demaisip

doctrine, again on the basis ofalter ego justification.

Tan vs. Director of Forestry, thereafter revived Calo andagainrequired appeal to the President as a prerequisite to an appeal of a

Cabinet member's decision to the courts of Justice.

D. Effect of Non-compliance

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect the

jurisdiction of the court and merely results in the lack of a cause of

action which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss.

If this ground to dismiss the court action is not properly or reasonably

invoked, the court may proceed to hear the case.

As previously noted, the court has the discretion to require the

observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and

18



may, if it sees fit, dispense with it and proceed with the disposition of the

case.

Questions Reviewable

Two kinds of questions are reviewable by the courts of justice, to wit: thequestion of factand thequestion of law.

On thequestion of fact, review of the administrative decision lies in the

discretion of the legislature, which may or may not permit it as it sees fit.

But when it comes to thequestion of law, the administrative decision may

be appealed to the courts of justice independently of legislative permission

or even against legislative prohibition. The reason is that the judiciary

cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions onquestions of law, whether made initially by lower courts and more so by

an administrative body.

A.Questions of fact

Even if allowed to review administrative decisions on questions of fact,

courts of justice generally defer to such decisions and will decline to

disturb them except only where there is a clear showing of arbitrariness

or grave abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court ruled inOsias Academy vs. DOLE that“findings of

administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because

their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally

accorded not only respect but finality.”

B.Questions of Law

Administrative bodies may be allowed to resolve questions of law in theexercise of their quasi-judicial function as an incident of their primary

power of regulation.

19



However as a rule,it is only the judicial tribunal that can interpret

and decide the question of law with finality.

20

cruz reviewer

Documents