Admin Reviewer

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

I. HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Development of Administrative Law as a distinct field of public law 1. Factors responsible for the emergence of  administrative agencies

*MERALCO V PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. FACTS: Meralco wanted SC to serve as arbitrators to determine the amount of toll that they would collect  HELD: SC should strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers EXPRESSLY or IMPLIEDLY conferred on it by the CONSTITUTION. -The SC and its members should not nor cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any task, or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with administering judicial judicial functions. -A board of arbitrators is not a court – it possesses none of the  jurisdiction granted by the Consti to SC

Pangasinan Pangasinan Transportation v Public Service Commission (J. Laurel) 1. growi growing ng comp complex lexiti ities es of modern modern life life 2. multipli multiplicati cation on of number number of of subje subjects cts needing needing government regulation 3. increa increased sed diff difficu iculty lty in admin administ isteri ering ng law law

*powers of SC should only be confined to what is in the CONSTITUTION

(Stone): the 3 branches of government lack: 1. time 2. expertise 3. organizat organizationa ionall aptitud aptitude e for effectiv effective e and continuin continuing g regulations of new developments in society …so administrative agencies agencies were created, out o f  necessity, to serve as a catch basin for the 3 branches

NOBLEJAS v TEEHANKEE FACTS: Noblejas, Land Registration Commissioner, was charged with improperly approving subdivision plans. Since Land Registration Commissioners enjoy the SAME COMPENSATION as that of CFI Judges, Noblejas contends that  he should be investigated and dismissed like CFI judges. HELD: Land Registration Commissioner DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME RANK as CFI Judges 1. it woul would d mean mean plac placing ing upon upon the the SC the the duty duty of  of  investigating and disciplining all these officials whose functions are purely executive and EXPRESSLY placed under the President’s control and supervision 2. if ever ever the there re is is such such a grant, grant, it woul would d be unconstitutional unconstitutional since it would be violative of the doctrine of separation of powers and would diminish the control of the PRESIDENT over executive officials

2. The doctrine of separation of powers and the constitutional position of administrative agencies Doctrine of separation of powers: -checks and balances -sovereign powers vested in 3 branches of government -basic powers of government should be kept separate from each other -dispersing the centers of authority to prevent ABSOLUTISM Re: administrative agencies: administrative agencies perform quasi-legislative, quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial functions though it is under the executive branch, therefore, it seems that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers. However, according to Stone, since the 3 branches lack time, expertise and organizational aptitude for effective and continuing regulation of new developments in society, the separation of  powers should not be strictly construed for the system not to collapse – the administrative agencies would serve as a catch basin for the 3 branches.

*It doesn’t mean that when an executive officer has the same compensation and privileges as a judiciary officer that they have the same rank and should be under the same branch of government

GARCIA v MACARAIG FACTS: There was a DISCIPLINARY ACTION vs a CFI Judge with the DOJ for allegedly receiving his salary even if he has not assumed his duties yet. BEFORE, CFI Judges were under  the supervision of the DOJ. The said judge was not able to assume his office because he DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE YET! HELD: Administrative complaint should be dismissed -NO judge should place himself in a position where his actuations would be subject to review and prior approval and, worse still, review, before they can have any legal effect, by any authority other than the CA or the SC

B. Definitions of T erms (DAVIS definition) ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Branch of public law Dealing with the doctrines and principles governing POWERS and PROCEDURES of ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ESPECIALLY including JUDICIAL REVIEW of Administrative action

*a co-equal branch cannot exercise authority over a co-equal branch

*IN RE: RODOLFO MANZANO FACTS: Judge Manzano requested SC to approve his appointment as a member of the Provincial Committee on  Justice, which exercises administrative functions HELD: Request denied ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS: involve the REGULATION and CONTROL over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the PROMULGATION of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy or such as are designated to any agency by the organic law of its existence

ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES Any governmental ORGAN or AUTHORITY Other than the court o r legislative body Which affects the RIGHTS of PRIVATE PARTIES  Through RULE-MAKING and ADJUDICATION ADJUDICATION

*PANGASINAN TRANSPORT INC v PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FACTS: PTI was applying for an authorization to operate additional busses, which was granted by the PBC subject to 2 conditions (that the certificate would only be valid for 25  years and that the government could acquire the said buses after just compensation) in accordance with CA 146. PTI wanted CA 146 to be declared void. HELD: -CA 146 is constitutional. constitutional. -The PSC could issue the said orders as a valid delegation of  legislative legislative powers (consider the FACTORS mentioned above↑); it was a valid SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION LEGISLATION – rules promulgated must be GERMANE and CONSISTENT with the law it seeks to implement -the said orders were in accordance with public interest, made under police powers of the state -case remanded for due process violations

*definition of ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS

PUYAT v DE GUZMAN FACTS: Assemblyman served initially as counsel but when not allowed, bought shares in the company and participated  as shareholder in the proceedings before the SEC HELD: Indirect appearance as counsel by an assemblyman before an administrative body circumvents the constitutional prohibition. II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION A. Administrative agencies and the executive power of  the President [ARTVII.1, CONSTI] Executive power vested in the President

*importance: on factors which contributed to the rise of administrative agencies

.1.

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~ enunciated the factors that made administrative administrative agencies necessary Legislative Control: 1. Crea Creati tion on and and abo aboli liti tion on 2. App Approp ropria riation tion 3. Inve Invest stiigati gation on Non-delegation Doctrine and Legislative Standards GR: under the non-delegation non-delegation doctrine, legislative powers conferred by the Constitution to the Legislature cannot be conferred to other branches of government. EXCEPTION: 1. the law is complete in itself, has a policy 2. the law comes with standards …however, even if the delegation is broad, judiciary is often hesitant to strike it down. Therefore, the focus of their judicial review is WON the administrative standards emanate from the law which created the agency itself   Judicial Review -judicial review allowed allowed on questions of law; if it involves questions of fact and policy, JR only allowed when there is (1) lack of jurisdiction; (2) GAD; (3) error of law; (4) fraud or collusion -on ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: AGENCIES: JR not resorted because of  their expertise EXCEPTIONS: EXCEPTIONS: re: questions of fact: JR resorted to when no substantial evidence Re: questions of policy: when question of policy are intimately connected with questions of law

[ARTVII.17, CONSTI] President has control over EXEC departments, bureaus and offices. B. Congressional Oversight Power *MACALINTAL v COMELEC FACTS: Congress created through RA 9198 a Joint  Congressional Oversight Committee to review, revise, amend  and approve the IRR of COMELEC for the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. It was assailed to be unconstitutional as it  encroaches the “independence” granted by the Constitution to COMELEC. HELD: Some of the provisions of RA 9198 were stricken out for being unconstitutional as it confers powers to the legislative legislative which are not provided for under the Constitution **********PUNO’s **********PUNO’s opinion********** opinion********** Separation of Powers -prevents the concentration of legislative, executive and  judiciary powers to a single branch of government by deftly allocating allocating their exercises to 3 branches of government -Although not “hermetically sealed” from one another, the powers of the 3 branches are identifiable: identifiable: legislative power = enactment of the law; executive power = execution of the law; judicial power = interpretation of the law. -one branch cannot exercise or share the power of the other -under separation of powers: checks and balances: under checks and balances, the congressional oversight Congressional Oversight -all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding understanding of and influence over the implementation of  legislation legislation it has enacted -intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of  government Categories: 1. scrutiny [Article VI, Sections 18 and 22] …determine the economy and efficiency efficiency of the operation of  government activities …based primarily on the  power of appropriation of  Congress wherein the Congress conduct hearings for administrative administrative officers to justify their budget proposals; and subsequently under [ArtVI.22], to invite department heads on any matter pertaining to their departments; …could also be based on the  power of confirmation of the Congress under [ArtVI.18], wherein Congress shares appointing power of the executive to lessen political considerations and an opportunity for Congress to find out whether the nominee possesses the necessary qualifications qualifications required. 2. investigation [Article VI, Section 21] …limitations: …limitations: (a) in aid of legislation; (b) in accordance with duly published rules of procedure; (c) rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected …essential and appropriate auxiliary auxiliary to the legislative function, which also includes the power to hold a person in contempt [Arnault v Nazareno]. …but the matters which should be addressed in the investigations investigations MUST BE IN AID OF LEGISLATION [Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee] 3. supervision -generally, -generally, the congress retains a “right” to approve or disapprove any regulation before it takes effect if the rulemaking power of the administrative agency is made to depend on a statute. -however, this case is an exception since the rule-making power of COMELEC was conferred not by a legislation but by the CONSTITUTION. CONSTITUTION.

D. The Ombudsman: Its effectivity and visibility amidst bureacratic abuse and irregularity. Dean Carlota Ombudsman’s essential characteristics characteristics 1. Poli Politi tica call inde indepe pend nden ence ce 2. Accessib Accessibilit ility y and expediti expedition: on: has has deputi deputies es all all over over the country and may establish offices outside Metro manila whenever necessary. 3. Invest Investiga igator tory y powers: powers: can can investi investigat gate e UPON COMPLAINT or on OWN INITIATIVE

4.

absence of revisory jurisdiction: cannot modify or overturn decisions of administrative administrative agencies in the performance of its rulemaking and adjudicative adjudicative functions

*CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF MWSS v VASQUEZ FACTS: There was a public bidding which was contested by  the losing bidder to the Office of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman set aside the MWSS decision to award the  project to the winning bidder  HELD: Ombudsman may not veto or revise an exercise of   judgment or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested especially when the matter involves basically basically technical matters coming under the special technical knowledge knowledge and training of the agency or officer. -in this case the losing bidder was suggesting the use of  fiberglass pipes instead of steel pipes. The Ombudsman had no authority to interfere with the judgment of MWSS of what kind of pipes to use! *Ombudsman has no revisory power

*LASTIMOSA V VASQUEZ FACTS: Provincial prosecutor filed only “acts of  lasciviousness” instead of “attempted rape” which was ordered by the Office of the Ombudsman, and thus was  placed under preventive suspension HELD: The ombudsman has the power to r eview, revise, direct, reverse or modify a decision of a prosecutor deputized or designated to be under the his control and supervision, and thus, can also punish and discipline them. -The Ombudsman has the power to INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE on its own or on complaint by any person (1) Any act or omission by any PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, OFFICE or AGENCY

C. Legislative and Judicial Control of Administrative Decision-making. Dean Carlota -administrative -administrative agencies affect private rights and public interest. It was first objected to due to the doctrine of  separation of powers BUT with the Pangasinan Pangasinan case, J. Laurel

.2.

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

(2) When such act or omission appears to be ILLEGAL, UNJUST, IMPROPER or INEFFICIENT (IUII) -includes ANY CRIME COMMITTED by a public official regardless of WON acts are related to, connected with, or arise from the performance of his official duty

word “recommend” should be interpreted with the phrase “and ensure compliance therewith”. *Ombudsman can direct and compel the head of the agency or office to implement the penalty imposed. Not merely advisory but Mandatory

*ESTARIJA v RANADA FACTS:Estarija FACTS:Estarija was found guilty by the Ombudsman of  dishonesty and grave misconduct for demanding monies for  the approval and issuance of berthing permits and monthly  contributions, and was dismissed from service. He questioned  the constitutionality of RA 6770 as granting powers to the Ombudsman which were not provided for by the COnsti HELD: Upheld the validity of RA 6770 based on the ff: 1. Jurisp Jurisprud ruden ence: ce: [LEDE [LEDESMA SMA V CA] CA] 2. intent intent fo fo frame framers rs of the the cons consti: ti: powe powers rs of  Ombudsman not exclusive 3. consti: consti: The The consti consti allows allows legis legislatu lature re to enact enact a law law that would spell out the powers of the Ombudsman.

*Although the ruling of this case involves the power of Ombudsman over its deputies, the case also highlighted that it has jurisdiction over ALL KINDS OF CASES INVOLVING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL regardless if it’s connected with his official duty

*BIR v OFICE OF T HE OMBUDSMAN FACTS: Upon information of an informant that BIR was granting anomalous grant of tax refunds, the Ombudsman directed BIR’s legal department to appear before him and to bring the case dokets of the two companies involved. BIR  protested, arguing that there was already a previous case which upheld the validity of the tax refunds and that THERE MUS BE A PENDING ACTION BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA HELD: the pendency of an action is not a prerequisite for the Ombudsman to start its own investigation. It can do so even on a verbal, unsigned or unverified complaint

III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES A. Legislative function 1. nondelegation doctrine: potestas doctrine: potestas delegate non delegare  potest 

*Ombudsman can motu propio investigate

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V ENOC FACTS: Ombudsman filed information against employees of  the OSCC who were accused with malversation through falsification. These employees had a salary grade below SG27. Respondents moved to quash information on the ground that regular courts had jurisdiction over the case (therefore provincial prosecutor should file case, not  ombudsman) HELD: Ombudsman has plenary and unqualified powers to prosecute NOT ONLY GRAFT CASES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN but also those COGNIZABLE BY THE REGULAR COURTS as long as (1) these acts were done by public officer or employee and (2) these acts appear to be IUII.

COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACCO V BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION FACTS: Act No. 2307 conferred the Board with authority to require every public utility reports containing such matters “as the Board may from time to time by order prescribe”. In  pursuance to the said law, the Board required Compania to  present a detailed report of its finances and operations of its vessels. Compania contested the validity of Act 2307 for  being an unlawful attempt to delegate legislative power to the Board. HELD: Act was unconstitutional. unconstitutional. Unlawful delegation of  legislative legislative power. -The law should provide the general rules of action under which the Board was to proceed. -legislative -legislative power, which involves discretion and judgment, should be exercised by the body entrusted with the duty and cannot delegate it. -the law must be complete, in all its terms and provisions, when it leaves the legislature, so that, in form and substance it is a law in all its details, in presenti, but which may be left to take effect in futuro.

*Ombudsman can prosecute cases even if not under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

*FUENTES V OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACTS: There was an expropriation case wherein the scrap iron in the said expropriated area was sold in a public auction and to be able to withdraw said scrap iron, the winning bidder  applied for a writ of execution before the petitioner judge. The writ of execution was granted but was subsequently  cancelled. Administrative charges were filed against the officers involved in the granting and implementing of the writ  of execution, including the judge who issued the said writ. Ombudsman was to investigate the acts of said judge. HELD: Ombudsman may not initiate a criminal or administrative administrative complaint before his office against a judge, pursuant to his power to investigate public officers. Ombudsman must indorse the case to the SC for appropriate action. [Art VIII.6, CONSTI] exclusively vests in SC administrative administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel

*For nondelegation: the law should provide general rules of action, must be complete

*US v ANG TANG HO FACTS: Act 2868 authorized the Governor General to fix  quantities of agricultural products that a company or  merchant may acquire, and the maximum sale price that the company or merchant may demand for any cause. Ang Tang Ho was prosecuted for allegedly imposing excessive price. He questioned constitutionality of said Act for authorizing GG to fix price. HELD: Unconstitutional. Unconstitutional. 1. Legislatu Legislature re left left GG to to determin determine e when when a crime crime is committed 2. Legislatu Legislature re cannot cannot delegate delegate its power power to make make a law but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes or intends to make its own action to depend

*Ombudsman cannot investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a court officer or personnel

LEDESMA V CA FACTS: Ledesma, as chair of BSI of BID filed a complaint  (criminal and administrative) against 2 of its employees for  allegedly granting extension of Temporary Resident Visas. Ombudsman conducted an investigation and subsequently  held that the grant of TRVs were regular. Ledesma appealed  the “recommendation” of the Ombudsman to CA, CA denied  MFR. HELD: Under [ArtXI.13(3), CONSTI] a recommendation” that emanates from the Ombudsman after it has conducted its investigation investigation is NOT MERELY ADVISORY BUT BINDING AND MANDATORY. -On RA 6770 vs CONSTI: RA 6770 grants the ombudsman the power to remove, suspend, demote…erring officials when the CONSTI merely provided that Ombudsman can only “recommend” the removal of the said official. SC held that the

*When a legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, it is undue delegation

*PEOPLE V VERA FACTS: Cu Unjieng convicted for a crime, applied for   probation. Act providing for probation assailed to be unconstitutional for leaving each provincial board the discretion on WON to apply it. HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

.3.

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

 TEST for determining WON there was UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER: WON the law does not lay down any rule by which the administrative office or board my be guided in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it.

that the legislature in making the delegation has prescribed the manner of the exercise of the legislative power. -in delegation of rate-fixing power, only standard legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and just.

*Test to determine undue delegation

*difference between a legislative act and a quasi-legislative act in rate-fixing Legislative: concerns all companies QJ: concerns a specific entity *STANDARD FOR RATE-FIXING POWER

*PELAEZ V AUITOR GENERAL FACTS: VP Pelaez assailed the constitutionality of EOs issued  by the President creating 33 municipalities for being an undue delegation of legislative power, and since the Administrative Code which the President used to create the municipalities was repealed by a law which prohibited him from even creating barrios. HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL -Creation of municipalities not an administrative function but one which is legislative in character. -COMPLETENESS -COMPLETENESS TEST: (1) law must be complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate (2) it must fix a standard – the limits are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.

*CHIONGBIAN *CHIONGBIAN V ORBOS FACTS: President Aquino merged provinces to form ARMM,  pursuant to RA 6734 and the Constitution, through and EO. EO was assailed as unconstitutional. HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL. -MERGING of provinces into regions is similar to the power to adjust municipal boundaries which is “administrative in nature”. NOT CREATING MUNICIPALITIES WHICH IS PURELY LEGISLATIVE. -standard may be embodied in other statues on the same matter and not necessarily in the same law being challenged. *standard may be found in other germane statutes; merging provinces administrative, not legislative

*Requisites for nondelegation

SANTIAGO v COMELEC FACTS: PIRMA launched a peoples’ initiative to remove the term limits on elective posts. COMELEC issued a resolution adopted to govern the conduct of people’s initiative to fill out  gaps of the enabling law RA 6735. This resolution was assailed. HELD: NOT VALID EXERCISE OF SUBORDINATE SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION -no standard, not complete

*EDU V ERICTA FACTS: Galo assailed validity of the Reflector Law HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -The standard defines the legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out the boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative legislative command is to be effected. -The standard may be express or implied. Standard here is public safety.

*The ruling here is questioned because the SC did not explain why the “standards” of the RA 6735 were incomplete, inadequate. The Resolution of COMELEC specifically was intended to make the said insufficiencies of the said law!

*Standards may be IMPLIED

*PANAMA v RYAN FACTS: An act empowered the President to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of “hot oil”. Panama assailed said law. HELD: Law unconstitutional. No standard, no policy.  The legislature, to prevent its being a pure delegation of  legislative legislative power, must enjoin upon the agent a certain course of procedure and certain rules of decision in the performance of its function. -delegation -delegation of power to make law is unconstitutional; unconstitutional; power to confer authority or discretion as to its execution is allowed. -discretion is not unconfined and vagrant. It is canalized within the banks that keep it from overflowing [J. Cardozo, dissenting, thinks that if viewed as a whole, the said law is provided with a standard]

AGUSTIN v EDU FACTS: This time the Reflector law was implemented through the Letters of Instruction which required all owners and  drivers to obtain a pair of reflectorized triangular early  warning device. HELD: Letters of Instruction CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL -the legislature must determine matters of principle, lay down fundamental policy, and indicate the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. *Also, standards may be IMPLIED (Public safety)

FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION V MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT FACTS: Union assails the constitutionality of the amendment  to the Labor Code which allows the Minister of Labor to certify  cases as “adversely affecting the national interest” for  compulsory arbitration. HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -To determine WON there is undue delegation of legislative power, inquire on the scope of definiteness definiteness of the measure enacted. ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION: All that is required is that: 1. the regul regulatio ation n should should be be germane germane to the the objects objects and the purposes of the law 2. the regul regulatio ation n be not in in contradi contradictio ction n with with it, it, but conform to the standards of the law -case was not yet ripe for adjudication

ALA SCHECTER POULTRY CORP V US FACTS: President conferred the power to approve or  disapprove codes of Fair Competition applied by a trade or  industrial group assailed. HELD: (vs. PANAMA v RYAN) when no statutory standards or procedural safeguards for promulgating the codes are provided, then it is undue delegation of legislative power. *”delegation run riot”

FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION v AL GONQUIN SNG, INC. FACTS: Trade Expansion Act authorizes the President to take action upon the finding of the Sec. of Treasury that an article is being imported in such quantities or under such circumstances as to “threaten to impair the national security”. President did just that. Companies assail constitutionality constitutionality of  said Act. HELD: Act CONSTITUTIONAL. It provided standards for the president to follow

*PHILCOMSAT V ALCUAZ FACTS: Philcomsat has long been the provider of satellite circuits in the Philippines. Then, NTC acquired jurisdiction over  Philcomsat and required the latter to reduce the rates it has been imposing. Philcomsat now assails the said orders for not  fixing standards. HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -delegation -delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and

*Just an example…

WHITE v ROUGHTON FACTS: standards for granting welfare assistance determined  by the general township assistance program. The people who

.4.

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~ (2) (2) Rec Record ords off officer cer sha shall carr carry y out out the the requirements under pain of disciplinary disciplinary action (3) (3) Perm Perman anen entt reg regis iste terr of of all all rule rules s sha shall ll be kept kept by the issuing agency SEC4. EFFECTIVITY Each rule shall be effective 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF FILING AS ABOVE PROVIDED UNLESS A DIFFERENT DATE IS FIXED BY  LAW. SEC5. PUBLICATION AND RECORDING UP Law Center shall publish bulletin SEC 6. OMISSION OF SOME RULES. Could omit rules which are cumbersome, expensive or inexpedient to publish -if penal rule, should be published in FULL TEXT SEC7. DISTRIBUTION OF BULLETIN AND CODIFIED RULES. SEC 8. JUDICIAL NOTICE. Court shall take judicial notice of  certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin SEC9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (1) agency agency publish publish or circulat circulate e notices notices of proposed proposed rules rules + opportunity for interested parties to submit their views (UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW) (2) FIXING FIXING RATES: RATES: proposed proposed rates rates shall shall have been been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before first hearing – or else proposed rates INVALID (so publication publication + hearing)

filed case vs. Roughton complains that they were deprived of  the benefits without notice or explanation for the decisions. HELD: Notice and hearing first before -establish written standards and regulations *sir said this case was unique because it said that if there are no standards, agency itself should provide standards 2. Permissible Delegation a. Ascertainment of Fact PANAMA v RYAN, supra Congress can leave selected instrumentalities the making of  subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply.

LOVINA v MORENO FACTS: Statute provided the Secretary of Public Works and Communications Communications the authority to determine WON a stream is public and WON dams encroach upon such waters… HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -when an officer is REQUIRED by law to inquire into the existence of certain facts, and to APPLY THE LAW – no delegation delegation o f judicial power *ABAKADA GURO V ERMITA FACTS: ABAKADA et.al assails the constitutionality of VAT  Reform Act. ON NONDELEGATION ISSUE, they assail the sections which provides the Sec. of Finance the power to ascertain WON the VAT collection as a percentage of the GDP exceeded a certain percentage… HELD: CONSTITUTIONAL -delegation -delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which the enforcement and administration of the increased rate would depend is not a delegation of legislative power but simply a delegation delegation of ascertainment ascertainment of facts. -Sec of Finance is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect.

1. Limits on Rule-Making Power

OLSEN INC V ALDANESE FACTS: In implementing an act improving method of   production and quality of tobacco, CIR issued AO 35 which limited the exportation into the US of Philippine cigars to those manufactured from long filler tobacco exclusively the  product of provinces Cagayan, Isabela or Nueva Viscaya. HELD: CIR exceeded its rule-making power *The authority of CIR to make any rules and regulation should be founded upon some legislative act (LAW), and that they must follow and be within the scope and purview of the act.

SYMAN V JACINTO FACTS: Collector seized the goods consigned to Syman, but  subsequently it was held that the said goods be released. Syman did not appeal from the said decision, and was asking for the execution of the said judgment. However, the said  decision was endorsed to the Commissioner of Customs in accordance with a Memo issued by the Commissioner   providing that the Commissioner can review the decisions of  the Collector, regardless if appealed or not. HELD: Memo void (1) not approve approved d by the the Departm Department ent Head Head (2) (2) not not pub publi lish shed ed (3) inconsiste inconsistent nt with with law, Revise Revised d Admin Admin Code specifically specifically provides that an appeal should first be made before Commissioner may review case

*delegation of power to ascertain facts allowed

b. filling in of details ALEGRE V COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS FACTS: Allegre who was an exporter of abaca, applied for permit to export abaca, but was denied unless he obtained a certification from the Fiber Standardization Standardization Board. HELD: NO delegation. Just carried out purpose and intent of  the law, which is administrative administrative *a statute which leaves to the Executive the power to fill in the technical details in view of the latter’s expertise is a recognized delegation of legislative power. C. Administrative Rule-making

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, BOOK VII

*the rule should not be inconsistent with the law (Revised Admin Code)

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC1. SCOPE. All agencies Except: -Congress -Judiciary -Constitutional -Constitutional Commissions -military establishments establishments in matters relating exclusively to AF personnel -Board of Pardons and Parole -state universities and colleges Sec2. definitions

PEOPLE V MACEREN FACTS: Accused convicted of violation of Fisheries Admin Order prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine Waters. But  enabling law which was promulgated did not prohibit electro fishing HELD: The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.

CHAPTER 2. RULES AND REGULATIONS SEC3. FILING (1) (1) Fil File wi with the the UP Law Law Ce Cente nter 3 certif rtifiied copies

 TOLEDO V CSC FACTS: Toledo was appointed as Manager of Education and  Information Department of the COMELEC even though he was 57 years old, in violation of the Civil Service Rules on

*cannot make penal rule if enabling law does not allow for one.

.5.

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

Personnel Action and policies. His appointment was subsequently declared voidable. HELD: The said prohibition by CSC is INVALID since the law which established CSC and authorized it to prescribe and enforce rules for carrying into effect the provisions of the law DOES NOT PROHIBIT APPOINTMENT OR REINSTATEMENT IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE OF ANY PERSON ALREADY 57 YEARS OLD

FACTS: HDMF made an amendment to the Mutual fund law, interpreting the “and/or” by providing just “and” in the amendment re: provident/retirement plans. HELD: the basic law should prevail as embodiment of the legislative legislative purpose; rules cannot go beyond the law’s terms and provisions

* cannot make rule which are not germane to the purpose of the law which it meant to implement

MAXIMA REALTY MANAGEMENT V PARKWAY FACTS: Concerns a sale of a condo unit which was cancelled because of defaults in payments of installments. The buyer filed with OAALA of HLURB a complaint for specific performance to enforce sale but HLURB affirmed nullification of Deed of sale. Appealed Appealed to Board of Commissioners of  HLURB and initially offered to pay the balance which was accepted by the seller but buyer still was not able to pay so Board affirmed nullification. nullification. Buyer appealed to Office of the President but filed appeal out of time. HELD: appeal filed out of time -Special Law (HLURB ROP and AO 18 provides 30d) vs PD (provides 15d): PD rules! -an administrative rule in order to be valid must not contradict but conform to the provisions of the enabling law. *Where there is conflict, follow the enabling law

*when there’s conflict, follow the enabling law

CIR v CA FACTS: ROH Autoparts applied for tax amnesty. CIR issued a Revenue Memo which construed the amnesty coverage to include only assessments after the issuance of the EO declaring tax amnesty. HELD: All rules must not override, but must remain consistent and in harmony with the law they seek to apply and implement. *must not be inconsistent with the enabling law

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V CA FACTS: In accordance with CARL, land of respondent was expropriated. However, instead of paying in cash or Land Bank bonds, DAR issued Certificates of Deposit. HELD: The function of promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised exercised only for the purpose to carrying the provisions of law into effect. The power of administrative agencies is thus confined to implementing law or putting it into effect. Corollary to this is that administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment

2. Publication and effectivity PEOPLE V QUE PO LAY FACTS: Que po lay said to have violated CB Circular No. 20 which requires the sale of foreign exchange to CB within 1 day following the receipt of such foreign exchange, and was convicted. On appeal, argued that said circular was not   published so not effective HELD: rule which prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective on the general principle and theory that before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation, or circular must first be published and the people officially and especially especially informed of said contents and its penalties. *publication *publication required for penal rules

*must be consistent with the enabling law

GMRC v BELL TELECOM PHIL FACTS: Belltel filed application with NTC. 2 deputy  commissioners already approved of the application but  Commissioner Kintanar didn’t. Memo Circular in NTC lodged in the Chairman the exclusive authority to sign, validate,  promulgate any and all orders, resolutions and decisions of  NTC, while the enabling law EO146 organized NTC as a collegial body. HELD: said Memo Circular is void. -Administrative -Administrative regulations derive their validity from the statute that they were intended to implement.

PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS V SSS FACTS: Original R & R provided rebate upon departure from RP of Alien employees but amendments which were published  NOV 1958 (After employees were separated from employment) eliminated the rebate except if worked for  2years HELD: VALID EVEN WITHOUT PUBLICATION -the R & R itself provides effectivity date on its day of  approval by the President

ASSOCIATION OF PHIL. COCONUT DESICCATORS V PHIL. COCONUT AUTHORITY FACTS: PCA issued Resolution which withdrew from PCA all regulation of coconut product processing industry; registration would be limited to the monitoring of their  volumes of production and admin of quality standards. HELD: said renunciation of power through a resolution VOID -Rule cannot abdicate the powers set up by the enabling law

*interpreted A2, NCC to apply ONLY when the law does not provide an effectivity date

*TANADA V TUVERA FACTS: mandamus to compel officials concerned to  publish/cause publication of Marcos’ orders in the OG HELD: Publication Publication in the OG is a condition sine quo non for the effectivity of laws, where the law itself does not provide for its effectivity date. -publication -publication necessary in cases to ascertain the date of  effectivity. -EXCEPTIONS TO PUBLICATION: 1.interpretative regulations 2. those merely internal in nature (regulating only personnel of the administrative administrative agency 3. Letters of instructions concerning rules or guidelines to be followed by subordinates in the performance of their duties

OPLE V TORRES FACTS: AO adopting a National ID System sought to be invalidated. HELD: The President may not unilaterally impose a new legislative legislative policy r equiring the adjustment of various other contending policies *power to promulgate rules should be made pursuant to the consti

PBC v CIR FACTS: BIR amended the NIRC by providing a longer   prescriptive period for filing Tax Refunds HELD: CIR Cannot provide for a longer prescriptive period, going beyond the NIRC *should be consistent with the enabling law

PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS V TORRES FACTS: DO and MC suspended the recruitment and  deployment of OFWs to HK but the said orders were not   published and filed with NAR

CHINA BANK V MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND

.6.

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

HELD: Law invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of  proper publication and filing in the office of the NAR as required by A2, NCC; A5, LC and Admin Code of 1987

*VICTORIAS CO V SSC FACTS: Victorias assailed Circular 22 which informed ERs that  all bonuses and OT pay as well as cash value of other media of remuneration would comprise the EEs remuneration or  earnings upon which the SSS contributions would be based. They argue that this rule should have the approval of the Prexi and should be published before it becomes effective. SSC argues that it’s a mere administrative interpretation of  RA 1161 which empowers the SSC to adopt R & R as may be necessary. HELD: Circular mere administrative interpretation which does not need publication -Old law exempts from coverage of the base pay the bonuses; AMENDMENT included included the bonuses in the base pay. Circ22 merely interpreted the amendment!

DE JESUS V COA FACTS: Circular implementing RA 6758 discontinued without  qualification all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary (but was not published in OG HELD: Should be published! *RP v EXPRESS TELCO FACTS: Bayantel applied for CPCN to operated CMTS but ist  motion was archived. Upon availability of frequencies, Bayantel filed motion to revive its case which NTC granted  under 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure, with its 1993 Rules not yet published even if filed with UP LAW CENTER HELD: Adminsitrative rules and regulations regulations are subject to the publication publication and effectivity rules of the RAC in relation to the Civil Code: Effectivity is 15 days after publication, not 15 days from date of filing with the UP Law Center.

*administrative interpretation at best merely advisory; it is the courts that finally determine what the law means

PERALTA V CSC FACTS: C5.49 of the Handbook of Information on the Philippine Civil Service provided deductions from salaries when absence incurred before or after weekends or holidays. RA 2625 intended to exclude from computation of leave Sat, Sun, and holidays because the employee is entitled not to go to office during those days HELD: when an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a preexisting law; -administrative -administrative interpretation of a law is at best advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. -Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if: (1) there is an error of law (2) abuse of power (3) lack of jurisdiction (4) GAD clearly conflicting with either either the letter or the spirit of  the legislative enactment

*effect of national administrative code on effectivity of rules

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS (NASECORE) V ERC FACTS: MERALCO filed an application to increase general charge BUT its amended application was not published, as required by IRR of EPIRA so consumer group questioned  validity of granting the said application on procedural  process. MERALCO argues that it used GRAM IR which exempted the application from publication HELD: should publish the suggested increase -GRAM IR was not even published *regardless, the present Admin Code now requires under Sec9, Book VII that publication is needed 2 weeks before the scheduled hearing

3. Penal Regulations PEOPLE V QUE PO LAY, supra HELD: Rule which prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective, before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation, or circular must first be published and the people officially officially and specifically specifically informed of said contents and penalties.

*when interpretation of admin agencies may be disturbed?

5. Examples of rule-making in various agencies DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY V MUNOZ FACTS: Piadeco claims to own some 72k ha. Of land through a Titulo de Propiedad and acquired a Certificate of Private Woodland Registration. Subsequently, due to violations, his certificate was cancelled. AO No. 12-2 also made his registration of said land prohibited. HELD: AO 12-2 has the force and effect of law, promulgated pursuant to the law. *when Congress authorized the promulgation of  administrative administrative rules and regulations to implement a given legislation, legislation, “all that is required is that : (1) the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law (2) the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conform to the standards that the law practices

PEOPLE V MACEREN, supra HELD: administrative rules and regulations cannot amend or modify or expand the enabling law by including, prohibiting or punishing certain certain acts which the law does not even define as a criminal act. 4. Inte Interp rpre reta tati tive ve Rule Rules s Subordinate legislation: designed to implement a law by providing it details -before its adoption there must be hearing under the Administrative Administrative Code [SEC9] Interpretative rules: how the agency interpret uncertainties in the law

SAND V ABAD SANTOS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FACTS: Respondents questioned visitorial powers and power  to deny admission of the Board of Examiners for nurses. TC ruled for them. HELD: The Board of Examiners had the power to promulgate rules in accordance with the Philippine Nursing Act, valid as to old and new schools, and is a valid exercise of Police power

HILLADO V COLLECTOR FACTS: Hilado filed income tax return for 1951 claiming P12873 deduction pursuant to GC v-123 which grants deductions based on war damage (However, he received  notice in 1950 so if ever, deductions would be made in 1950). Later, Sec of Finance issued GC V 139 which declared GC V123 void  HELD: Hilado cannot claim income tax return 1. he receiv received ed last last notic notice e on 1951 1951 so so deduct deduct from 1950 2. not a business business asset asset – dependen dependentt upon upon gener generosity osity 3. merely merely interp interpretat retative ive rule cannot cannot chang change e the the law law enacted by congress

*AMERICAN TOBACCO V DIRECTOR OF PATENTS FACTS: Director of patents amended the Revised Rules of  Practice before the Philippine Patent Office, authorizing himself to designate any ranking official to HEAR inter partes  proceedings, BUT STILL RETAINING power to determine the merits of the case and the personal and direct preparation of  the case. HELD: Amendment valid

*Interpretative rules may be found erroneous by the successor of the promulgating official. A vested right cannot spring from wrong interpretation of law.

.7.

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

SUBDELEGATION SUBDELEGATION OF POWER: While the power to decide resides solely in the administrative agency vested by law, this does not preclude a delegation of the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which the decision of administrative agency will be made. It is sufficient sufficient that the judgment and discretion finally exercised are those of the officer authorized by law. Subdelegation Subdelegation is allowed by sound principles of organization, unless expressly prohibited by law.

MIAA V AIRSPAIN FACTS: MIAA leases areas in airport, increased rentals and  airport fees HELD: rate-fixing exercised by MIAA NULL and VOID -DOTC had the power to increase the said rates, NOT MIAA! *agency cannot exercise rate-fixing powers if not authorized to do so!

e. Licensing Functions Administrative Code, Book VII [SEC17. LICENSING PROCEDURE] Grand, renewal, denial, cancellation of license Required to be preceded with NOTICE AND HEARING Unless: -willful violation of pertinent law, rules and regulations -When public security, health or safety requires

***since the other cases are just examples…saka na lang… d. Fixing of Rates, Wages, Prices Administrative Code, Book VII [SEC9. Public Participation] (2) In fixing rates, not valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 wks before 1 st hearing

[SEC18. NONEXPIRATION OF LICENSE] In case of timely and sufficient application for renewal: not expired until agency finally determined the application (deemed valid until renewal denied)

PANAY AUTOBUS V PHIL RAILWAY FACTS: Philippine Railways allowed to increase or decrease the rates they were collecting whenever in their judgment  they find it necessary…

GONZALO SY TRADING V CBP FACTS: Gonzalo was granted a permit to export fruits for the  Xmas season of 68 but still used the permit from 69-70. The fruits he subsequently imported were forfeited and sold in a  public auction. HELD: no expiry date does not mean that the license is perpetual. A license permit is a special privilege, a permission or authority to do what is within its terms. It is not vested, permanent, or absolute, but is ALWAYS REVOCABLE. *no such thing as a permanent license!

CF: KMU V GARCIA FACTS: LTFRB allowed application for fare rate increase even without filing a petition for the said purpose HELD: Abdication Abdication of power of commission to fix rates by redelegating delegating their rate-fixing power to those they’re supposed to regulate is VOID *companies should propose rates and the commission would either approve or disapprove the proposed rates

B. JUDICIAL FUNCTION 3 essential elements of judicial function 1. competent tribunal which has jurisdiction as provided by law 2. case or controversy 3. law or rule to be applied to resolve a case

*YNCHAUSTI *YNCHAUSTI V PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION FACTS: increase in shipping rates, strike of seamen led to increase in wages, led to further increase in rates HELD: increase in rates improper; should be based on: 1. orig origiinal nal cost cost 2. cost cost of of rep repro rodu duct ctio ion n 3. outs outsta tand ndin ing g capi capita tali liza zati tion on 4. pres presen entt mar marke kett valu value e compared with just compensation in appropriation cases: take into account fair market value @ time of taking IN CASE OF VESSELS: public transportation -taking done only once, but gradually, so rates should not be based on ACQUISITION COST, but on present market value

So what’s the difference between what Administrative Administrative bodies are doing vs Judicial bodies -admin bodies are NOT REGULAR COURTS OF JUSTICE (Not part of the judiciary) -Admin bodies NOT BOUND BY TECHNICAL RULES AND PROCEDURES …they were created with dispatch, flexibility, flexibility, speed so they can resolve cases in the soonest available available time for the good of  the public

*rates should be based on present valuation of all the property of the public utility

*VIGAN ELECTRIC V PSC FACTS: PSC ordered Vigan Electric to reduce the rates it was collecting for its electric service (without hearing) HELD: Order VOID for being violative of DUE PROCESS (as was discussed in PHILCOMSAT) *LEGISLATIVE v QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION LEGISLATIVE: rule-making rule-making power, power to fix rates meant to apply to ALL ENTERPRISES of a given kind THROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINES QUASI-JUDICIAL: applies EXCLUSIVELY to a single enterprise, affecting its rights and property -requires HEARING and NOTICE to the propriety and reasonableness reasonableness of the rates fixed

Administrative Code, Book VII [SEC10. COMPROMISE AND ARBITRATION] ARBITRATION] Every agency encourage amicable settlement, compromise and arbitration [SEC11. NOTICE AND HEARING IN CONTESTED CASES] 1. all parties entitled to notice and hearing Notice: served at least 5 days before date of hearing …state DATE, TIME and PLACE of HEARING 2. opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues …informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation 3. records of proceedings kept by agency

*PHILCOMSAT V ALCUAZ, supra FACTS: Philcomsat was required to lower its rates

[SEC12. RULES OF EVIDENCE] 1. admit, give probative value to evidence Commonly accepted by reasonably prudent man In conduct of their affairs 2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: may present copies or excerpts, subject to review of parties 3. right to cross-examine, cross-examine, submit rebuttal evidence 4. JUDICIAL NOTICE:

*HELD: Notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of  administrative action in the exercise of EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, or LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS; BUT where a public administrative body acts in a JUDICIAL or QUASI-JUDICIAL matter, and its acts are PARTICULAR and IMMEDIATE rather than general and prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice and hearing.

.8.

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~ invoking the right is a mere witness, the right is applied in a question to question basis, not a blanket refusal.

-judicially cognizable facts -generally -generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within the agency’s specialized knowledge

*GUEVARRA V COMELEC FACTS: alleged irregularities in COMELEC, Guevarra cited for  contempt for publishing an article regarding said irregularity  HELD: Although COMELEC had the power to cite persons in contempt, this power CANNOT BE USED IN THE DISCHARGE OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS – only in relation to their quasi  judicial functions

[SEC13. SUBPOENA] -power to require attendance of witnesses -power to require production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data UPON REQUEST+ show GENERAL RELEVANCE -INVOKE AID OF RTC to punish disobedience, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW

CATURA V CIR FACTS: CIR ordered Catura to provide CIR with the book of  accounts of the union. HELD: CIR could validly order the presentation of the said accounts It is not for the SC to whittle down the authority conferred on administrative administrative agencies to assure the effective administration of a statute. If the matter is properly within its cognizance, cognizance, the means necessary to give it force and effectiveness effectiveness should be deemed implied, unless unless the power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench upon private rights.

[SEC14. DECISION] -in writing -shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based -decide case within 30 days following its submission -parties notified personally or by registered mail [SEC15.FINALITY [SEC15.FINALITY OF ORDER] -final and executory 15d after the receipt of a copy thereof of  adverse party -UNLESS: admin appeal or JR -1 MFR, suspends running of period for appeal *ON PROVISIONS OF ADMIN CODE: minimum standards, allows elbow room for the agencies

 TOLENTINO V INCIONG FACTS: Inciong (SOLE) cited for contempt the Judge who heard case in CFI and the President of the labor union. HELD: SOLE cannot hold a CFI JUDGE IN CONTEMPT! -a public official exercises power, not rights. The government being an agent of the people, its officers are likewise agents entrusted with responsibility of discharging its functions. As such there is no presumption that the officers are empowered to act. There must be a delegation of such authority, express or implied, and in the absence of a valid grant they are devoid of power. *power to hold a person in contempt is not presumed, but must be expressly or impliedly granted

a. Power to issue subpoena, declare contempt [SEC13] -SHOULD BE EXPRESSLY GRANDTED BY LAW, or else invoke -all have power to issue subpoenas to perform its adjudicative functions -contempt powers should be expressly provided by law

*IF THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES OR CONFERS AUTHORITY TO THE AGENCY TO CITE A PERSON FOR CONTEMPT THEN IT MAY DO SO. HOWEVER, IF NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 13, BOOK VII OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987 MUST INVOKE THE AID OF THE RTC.

b. Warrants of arrest, Administrative searches [ARTIII.2, CONSTI] No search warrant/ warrant of arrest shall issue EXCEPT upon probable cause  To be determined PERSONALLY by the JUDGE After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant complainant and the witnesses he may produce And particularly describing describing place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized Vs. 1973 consti: provided that other responsible officer as may be authorized by law MAY issue warrants!

WHY EXPRESS POWER TO CITE PERSON IN CONTEMPT NEEDED? Power to declare a person in contempt is STRICTLY A JUDICIAL POWER so it must be conferred by law [PD 902-A] SEC granted the following powers -punish for contempt in accordance with the ROC -issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witness to appear

*QUA CHEE GAN V DEPORTATION BOARD FACTS: Qua Chee Gan was arrested by the DB (acting as agents of the president) after charges was brought against  him by the DB. HELD: ILLEGAL ARREST -the president’s power of investigation investigation may be delegated and DB is his authorized agent -HOWEVER, power power granted to DB does not extend to power to arrest since it involved the exercise of discretion by the one exercising the same, to determine whether under specific circumstances, circumstances, the curtailment of liberty is warranted -Filing of a bond to ensure presence in deportation proceedings enough

*EVANGELISTA *EVANGELISTA V JARENCIO FACTS: President created PARGO, and vested it powers of an investigating committee under the RAC. Manalastas issued a subpoena ad testificandum. Manalastas questioned said  subpoena. HELD: PARGO may issue subpoena -PARGO was EXPRESSLY authorized by the EO which created it the power to issue subpoena -Administrative -Administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations… …WON adjudication is involved …WON probable cause is shown …even before the issuance of the complaint  TEST for valid enforcement of subpoena: 1. withi within n the the auth authori ority ty of the agency agency 2. dema demand nd not not too too ind indef efin init ite e 3. informati information on reasona reasonably bly relev relevant ant (gene (general ral releva relevance) nce)

*Immigration authorities can only issue warrants of arrest against undesirable aliens ONLY if such issuance is pursuant to a FINAL ORDER of deportation. They cannot issue warrants for purposes of investigation, only judges can do so.

VIVO V MONTESA FACTS: Calacaday brothers admitted to the Philippines because they were allegedly sons of legitimate Filipino citizens but their alleged father (in a fit of anger) disowned  them (later retracted). DB ordered for their arrest, for them to show cause why they should not be deported. One of the

IN INVOKING RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN ADMIN PROCEEDINGS -In administrative proceedings proceedings which are Punitive or quasicriminal in character, respondent in that case can invoke the rights against self-incrimination. self-incrimination. BUT when the person

.9.

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

brothers who was not arrested prayed that deportation  proceedings be restrained… HELD: CFI cannot restrain deportation proceedings -issuance of warrants of arrest by commissioner SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTIGATION AND BEFORE FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION unconstitutional unconstitutional – only judge could issue warrants.

*SALAZAR V ACHACOSO FACTS: POEA issued warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) upon complaint of illegal recruitment filed before it. HELD: ONLY Judges could issue warrant of arrest in accordance with the Consti -the provision of the L C which authorized the SOLE to issue warrants now declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, had no force and effect -EXCEPTION: -EXCEPTION: President of RP/Commissioner of CID can issue warrants ONLY IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT A FINAL DECISION OF DEPORTATION in recognition of supremacy of the Executive in matters of foreign affairs *Consistent with Qua Chee Gan in upholding power to issue warrants vested only in judge – and that Commissioner may only issue warrants AFTER DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS PROCEEDINGS ALREADY TERMINATED

*consistent with Qua Chee Gan doctrine

SANTOS V COMMISSIONER FACTS: Allegedly Chinese citizen detained pending deportation proceedings. Chinese file petition for habeas corpus and was ordered released  HELD: Warrant of arrest VOID -applied 1935 Consti which only authorized JUDGE to determine probable cause for issuing warrant of arrest *Consistent with Qua Chee Gan doctrine

***SO AFTER HARVEY and LUCIEN cases, QUA CHEE GAN DOCTRINE was subsequently reconsidered by SC

***IN THE 3 PRECEDING CASES, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CONSTI MADE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AND CRIMINAL WARRANTS OF ARREST***

*CAMARA V MUNICIPAL COURT FACTS: There was supposedly an inspection of a residential house among the apartment building compound but the owner refused entrance of the inspectors without a WARRANT  HELD: WARRANT NEEDED for search and seizure BEFORE conducting a search -right against unreasonable searches and seizure safeguarded -right to privacy > right to public safety -could still conduct inspection, BUT HAS TO ACQUIRE A WARRANT to do so DISSENT: it was common practice to conduct routinary  inspection without warrant since it is NOT A CRIMINAL INSPECTION. INSPECTION. If warrant needed every time a routine inspection is conducted, then court would only serve as a rubber stamp!

*HARVEY V DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO FACTS: suspected pedophiles were to be deported and   pending deportation proceedings, were ordered to be arrested by Commissioner  HELD: Warrants VALID! -VS. QUA CHEE GAN, this case held that requirement that probable cause be determined personally by the judge DOES NOT EXTEND TO DEPORTATION PROCEEDING, the determination determination of the existence of a ground for deportation could be determined by the commissioner -ADMIN vs CRIM DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE: the proceedings are NOT PENAL, merely PREVENTIVE -requisites for issuance of warrants: 1. specific charge against the alien 2. a fair hearing conducted 3. charge be substantiated substantiated by competent evidence

*SEE V SEATTLE FACTS: locked commercial warehouse to be inspected for fire protection but owner refused entry HELD: UPHOLD right to privacy -secure warrant first -LIMITS on ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS OF CORPORATE BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS 1. limited in scope 2. relevant in purpose 3. specific directives so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome 4. subpoena must designate the deeded documents 5. subpoena may not be made and enforced in the field 6. subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of  reasonableness reasonableness of demand prior to suffering penalties penalties for refusal to comply *sir said that this case would have been different if the warehouse was not locked.

*ruled that warrants may be issued by commissioner PENDING deportation proceedings vs. Qua Chee Gan Doctrine

LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA V LIWAG FACTS: LTVN, a French national, entered RP as a temporary  visitor but became an immigrant. However, he was reported  by his lessor to be an undesirable alien, and a MISSION ORDER was issued by CID Commissioner to arrest LTVN. LTVN refused arrest but was subsequently arrested. No proof that  warrant of arrest was served prior to arrest. Petition for  habeas corpus filed. HELD: ARREST ILLEGAL, Petition MOOT and ACADEMIC because released upon posting of bail -still upheld power of commissioner to issue warrants, but this time warrant was illegally issued because NO PROBABLE CAUSE sufficient to justify the warrant. *consistent with Harvey doctrine

c. Imposition of Fines and Penalties

*BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V DELAROSA FACTS: William Gatchalian (plastic king of Valenzuela) came from China, arriving from China as RP Citizens, with his grandpa recognized as a native born RP citizen. Subsequently, SOJ issued memo which ordered review of all cases wherein entry was made on the ground that the entrants were RP Citizens. Upon review, Gatchalian was included among those who were ordered excluded and a warrant of exclusion was issued. However, subsequently it was revoked. After almost  20 years, SOJ ordered mission orders upon recommendation of NBI that Gatchalian et.al. had violated Immigration Act. HELD: Mission orders VOID *Consistent with Qua Chee Gan: Warrant of arrest can be issued by Commissioner only after deportation proceedings and for the sole purpose of executing a final order of  deportation.

*OCEANIC STEAM V STRANAHAN FACTS: Shipping company seeks to recover the money it paid  to the Secretary of Commerce as a fine for clearance in relation to the authority conferred by law to the Secretary to refuse entry of ships with aliens afflicted with a loathsome or  dangerous contagious disease. HELD: Secretary had power to impose such exaction -TEST FOR VALIDITY (3 should all concur) 1. subject matter must be within the control of the Congress to legislate 2. Penalty is administrative or civil, not criminal (i.e. no corresponding service in jail if unable to pay) 3. power to impose fines must be expressly authorized by law *Test for validity = framework to be used

. 10 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~ 2. Public Interest

*CAB v PAL FACTS: CAB imposed fines against PAL for operating the flagstop without permission. HELD: CAB Could validly impose fines -a fine in the nature of a civil penalty (i.e. not in the nature of  criminal penalty) that is exacted not so much as a penalty for a violation of administrative rules but for the need to stress desistance from wanton disregard of existing rules, regulations, or requirements , is an administrative penalty which administrative administrative officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecution. If every time the agency had to resort to courts of justice in protracted litigations, litigations, it could not serve its purpose as an administrative administrative body.

PEOPLE v. ROSENTHAL FACTS: Blue Sky Law assailed  HELD: Blue Sky Law constitutional, no delegation of legislative power -Insular Treasurer can only cancel certificates or permits upon finding that such a cancellation is in the public interest. 3. Justice, equity and substantial merits of the case INTL HARDWOOD V PANGIL FED FACTS: SOLE certified a labor dispute to CIR. ER assailed the  jurisdiction of the CIR to determine minimum wages dispute HELD: no undue delegation, CIR can validly determine minimum wages under assailed law -CIR could validly take cognizance of the case, acting according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case. These standards are sufficient to guide CIR in exercising discretion in the determination of any question or controversy before it.

*nature of Administrative penalties

SCOTY’S DEPT. STORE V MICALLER FACTS: CIR imposed a fine on the dept store for ULP HELD: CIR not authorized by enabling law to impose fines *if imposition of fines is not clearly stated in the enabling law, then it is a judicial function

4. What is moral, educational or amusing . MUTUAL FILMS V INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION FACTS: Board of censors wanted the films (2500 in all!) to be reviewed first before it would be exhibited. Mutual films complained that the Board of censors would not be able to do so before the showing date, and that the enabling law is unconstitutional for it does not provide the Board of sufficient  standards of what is educational, moral, amusing or harmless HELD: Statute CONSTITUTIONAL, there are sufficient standards in the law itself. The statute guards against such variant judgments and its terms get precision from the sense of men and become certain and useful guidelines in reasoning and conduct. *sufficient standards na daw ung educational, moral, amusing or harmless, and its meaning can be derived from the sense of men…[cf: next case]

*US V BARRIAS FACTS: Barrias, captain of the barge who used bamboo poles instead of steam power to move the boat along the Pasig River, was fined. HELD: Penalty imposed invalid because the enabling law does not provide for it. It was the local authorities who would decide what penalty was to be given… *fixing penalties for a criminal offense is a legislative power that cannot be delegated

RCPI V BOARD OF COMMUNICATIONS FACTS: 2 complaints vs RCPI before the BOC for damages suffered by the said customers for the failure of company to transmit impt. Telegrams HELD: BOC cannot impose fines because said complaint asks for damages, which is cognizable under regular courts of   justice

5. what is sacrilegious BURSTYN V WILSON FACTS: Film declared as “sacrilegious” and was banned from exhibition HELD: The standard used by the enabling law (SACRILEGIOUS) (SACRILEGIOUS) is not sufficient in itself. UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER -the term “sacrilegious” based on the “sense and standards of  the community” is too vague a standard

*DAMAGES for BOC not Administrative fines

PEREZ V LPG REFILLERS ASSOC FACTS: Refillers assail circular issued by DOE which implements implements the law which provides for penalties for acts relating to trade of petroleum products HELD: Circular valid -for an administrative regulation to have the force and effect of penal law, the following must concur: 1. the violation of the administrative regulation regulation must be made a crime by the enabling statute itself  2. the penalty must be pro vided for by the enabling statute itself 

6. adequate and efficient instruction PACU V SECRETARY FACTS: petitioners argue that DEPed Sec given unlimited power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards of  adequate and efficient efficient instruction to be observed by private schools and colleges for permit to operate, therefore unconstitutional HELD: Constitutional, no undue delegation of legislative legislative power -the power to provide rules based on adequate and efficient instruction is a sufficient standard 7. reasonableness as an implied standard WISCONSIN INSPECTION BUREAU V WHITMAN FACTS: Wisconsin Rating Act required insurance companies to submit its rulebooks. Insurance companies assailed the law for giving the commissioner unlimited power – no standards that would govern his action HELD: There is an implied standard: REASONABLENESS -administrative -administrative bodies and officers must act not only within their statutory powers but in a REASONABLE AND ORDERLY MANNER. The rule of reasonableness inheres in every law, and the acts of those charged with its enforcement must be subject to the test of reasonableness.

*requisites for a rule to provide for valid penalties

C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards -for purposes of determining WON there was delegation of  legislative legislative power (i.e. there was sufficient standard and the law provides for a policy which would guide the delegate on how to implement the law) 1. Interest of Law and Order RUBI V PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO FACTS: mangyans relocated by PB of Mindoro, and refusal to do so would result to imprisonment HELD: Relocation valid -no delegation of legislative power, only conferred authority or discretion as to the execution pursuance to law  The PB best fitted to select the most favorable site for improving the lives of the Mangyans -government must guarantee the peace and order to encourage immigrants immigrants to invest in Mindoro and to protect crops and persons of settlers of Mindoro from predatory men (i.e. the “uncultured” Mangyans)

*every law is implied to have a standard of reasonableness

8. to promote simplicity, economy or efficiency

. 11 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

CERVANTES V AUDITOR GENERAL FACTS: the resolution of NAFCO’s Board of Directors which proposed quarters allowance in favor of Cervantes was denied in accordance with RA 51 which allowed President to make such reforms and changes for the purpose of promoting simplicity, simplicity, economy or efficiency HELD: EO of President disallowing the resolution in Cervantes favor is VALID. There was sufficient standard

-parties notified personally or by registered mail [SEC15.FINALITY OF ORDER] -final and executory 15d after the receipt of a copy thereof of  adverse party -UNLESS: admin appeal or JR -1 MFR, suspends running of period for appeal 2. Due process a. Cardinal Primary Rights *ANG TIBAY V CIR FACTS: Employees temporarily laid off due to shortage of  leather. CIR subsequently ruled in favor of ER so EEs appealed  to SC, saying that CIR should be bound by technical rules of   procedure. HELD: CIR not bound by technical rules of procedure, but must still observe due process *Cardinal Primary Rights 1. Right to hearing: present case, adduce evidence evidence 2. tribunal must consider the evidence presented 3. decision must be supported by evidence 4. evidence must be substantial substantial evidence: …such relevant evidence …as a reasonable mind might accept …as adequate to support a conclusion 5. decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected 6. Independent consideration of the judge: not simply accept the view of subordinate in arriving at a decision 7. decision must be rendered in such a manner as to let the parties know the issues involved and the r easons for the decision rendered

9. maintain monetary stability, stability, promote rising level of  production and real income PEOPLE V JOLIFFE FACTS: MB authorized to punish violators of its circulars, Joliffe being one of them for hoarding gold bullins without license HELD: Such authority as conferred by enabling law is CONSTITUTIONAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, no undue delegation of legislative power

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE A. admin code (BOOK VII, SEC1-26) B. In Rule-making, price, wage, or rate-fixing [SEC9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION] PARTICIPATION]

1.

an agency shall publish or circulate notices of  proposed rules afford interested parties opportunity to submit their views prior to adoption of any rule

2. 3.

in fixing rates: published proposed rates at least 2 weeks before 1 st hearing in case case of opposi opposition: tion: rules rules on contested contested cases cases shall shall be observed (chapter 3 on adjudication)

C. In Adjudicatin of Cases 1. Rules of Procedure Administrative Code, Book VII [SEC10. COMPROMISE AND ARBITRATION] Every agency encourage amicable settlement, compromise and arbitration

ASPREC V ITCHON FACTS: Surveyor who executed wrong survey plan contests cancellation of his license, allegedly in violation of due  process HELD: They were the ones who did not attend the hearing -The presence of a party is not always the essence of due process. What the law requires is that parties be given NOTICE of the trial and an OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD

[SEC11. NOTICE AND HEARING IN CONTESTED CASES] 1. all parties entitled to notice and hearing Notice: served at least 5 days before date of hearing …state DATE, TIME and PLACE of HEARING 2. opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues …informal disposition disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation 3. records of proceedings kept by agency

*presence not required in the proceedings, as long as given opportunity to be heard

VINTA MARITIME V NLRC FACTS: Foreigner verbally barrated EE, allegedly the EE was given fair warning and enough opportunity to explain his gross negligence and incompetence so he was dismissed. EE filed case in POEA, POEA decided case in favor of the EE based on the mutual agreement of the parties to submit   position papers and supporting papers. ER complains HELD: Opportunity to be heard through position papers sufficient, trial discretionary and cannot be demanded demanded from the Administrative Agency.

[SEC12. RULES OF EVIDENCE] 1. admit, give probative value to evidence Commonly accepted by reasonably prudent man In conduct of their affairs 2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: may present copies or excerpts, subject to review of parties 3. right to cross-examine, cross-examine, submit r ebuttal evidence 4. JUDICIAL NOTICE: -judicially cognizable facts -generally -generally cognizable technical or scientific facts within the agency’s specialized knowledge

*conduct of trial discretionary in administrative agencies (sabi ni sir unless the enabling law itself provides for trial)

SHOPPES MANILA V NLRC FACTS: ee dismissed for alleged shoplifting of Bayo apparel HELD: Hearing discretionary upon Labor Arbiter, cannot be demanded, decision could be based merely on position papers

[SEC13. SUBPOENA] -power to require attendance of witnesses -power to require production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data UPON REQUEST+ show GENERAL RELEVANCE -INVOKE AID OF RTC to punish disobedience, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW

BACHRACH MOTOR V CIR FACTS: An EE dismissed for alleged violations of Motor vehicle law resulting to damage to property of company. GM of the company testified before the proceedings but left early so EE’s side was not able to cross-examine the said witness HELD: If not able to cross examine the witness, the testimony could be stricken off from the records of the proceedings

[SEC14. DECISION] -in writing -shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based -decide case within 30 days following its submission

*the right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witness in a judicial litigation, criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative

. 12 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process

-when it affects a person’s status and liberty 2. when not required -urgent reasons -when discretion is exercised by the officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact SUNTAY V PEOPLE FACTS: Suntay was charged with seduction so DFA Sec cancelled his passport  HELD: not notice and hearing required because it was DFA Sec’s discretion to cancel his license upon an undisputed fact that justifies the cancellation, i.e. criminal charges against him

MONTEMAYOR V BUNDALIAN FACTS: DPWH official alleged to have amassed wealth from lahar funds HELD: even when not able to cross-examine the complainant, the active participation in the proceedings removed any badge of procedural infirmity UP BOR V CA FACTS: Indian citizen who took her doctoral degree in UP submitted a plagiarized dissertation. UP revoked her diploma after she graduated. HELD: Withdrawal was valid, done in accordance with due process

-valid exercise of police power POLLUTION ADJUDICATION ADJUDICATION BOARD V CA FACTS: PAB issued an ex parte cease and desist order based  on the reports of previous inspections wherein the company  was found to be discharging toxic chemicals in the river  HELD: no notice and hearing needed because the situation (pollution) cannot be made o wait until protracted litigation has run its full course -protect public interest so exercise of police power

*ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO. V CA FACTS: the appointed secretary of DANR reviewed on appeal HIS OWN DECISION HELD: The reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no review of the case RIVERA V CSC FACTS: CSC commissioner reviews her decision as a Board  Chairman HELD: Zambales Chromite ulit!

c. Form and promulgation of judgment [SEC14. DECISION] -in writing -shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based -decide case within 30 days following its submission -parties notified personally or by registered mail

AMERICAN INTERFASHION CORP V OFFICE OF THE PREXI FACTS: allegedly coerced to withdraw petition before which alleged charges not supported by evidence HELD: evidence on record must be fully disclosed to the parties

[SEC15.FINALITY OF ORDER] -final and executory 15d after the receipt of a copy thereof of  adverse party -UNLESS: admin appeal or JR -1 MFR, suspends running of period for appeal

PEFIANCO V MORAL FACTS: Librarian of the National Library wanted a copy of the investigation committee report finding her guilty of pilferage so filed petition for mandamus HELD: mandamus would not lie

ANG TIBAY GUIDELINE (7): deci should state facts, issues and law upon which it is based, and the reasons for such decision

*respondents in administrative cases not entitled to be informed of the findings of  the investigative committees but only of the decision of the administrative body

…on form of the decision INDIAS V PHIL IRON MINES FACTS: CIR rendered a decision stating that “after a perusal of  the records of the case, the Court finds no sufficient  justification  justification for modifying said recommendation (of the CIR hearing officer that EE was dismissed for just cause), findings and conclusions, and consequently, this case is hearby dismissed.” HELD: CIR decision valid -it is not necessary to discuss own findings of fact when it is satisfied with the report of the examiner or referee which already contains a full discussion of the evidence and the findings of fact based thereon – the report of the examiner was recited in the decision so not necessary

NAPOLCOM V BERNABE FACTS: bernabe assails decision of NAPOLCOM to dismiss him based on affidavits (without hearing) HELD: due process satisfied with Bernabe’s submission of a point-by-point affidavit which answered each allegation against him GOSS V LOPEZ FACTS: DP allegedly not observed when students were suspended without hearing, and cannot appeal HELD: only need “some kind of notice, some kind of hearing”

*when the findings of fact and the discussion of the evidence made by the subordinates of the judge or referee is sufficient and the judge or referee is satisfied with it then the judge could just copy it in the body of his decision

MATTHEWS V ELRIDGE FACTS: DP allegedly violated because no full blown evidentiary hearing was held to declare the termination of  benefits HELD: 3 distinct factors to be considered for administrative due process to be sufficient: 1. privat private e inte interes restt to be affec affected ted 2. risk of erroneo erroneous us depriva deprivation tion of such such intere interest st and and the the probable value of additional safeguards 3. gov’t’ gov’t’s s interes interestt vis-à-v vis-à-vis is govern governme ment nt costs costs

SERRANO V PSC FACTS: PSC denied the application of Serrano to operate taxi cabs without stating the reason for doing so HELD: PSC decision decision invalid invalid -Consti provision applies only to regular courts of justice but Ang Tibay Case provides a guideline that judges should render its decision in such a manner as to inform the parties the issues involved and the reasons for the decision

b. Notice and Hearing 1. When required -when they involve a fine/penalty/sanction fine/penalty/sanction [NDC V COLLECTOR] -when the law specifically requires notice and hearing [LABOR CODE]

*applies Ang Tibay (7)

ALBERT V GANGAN FACTS: COA decision holding Albert liable did not state the facts upon which he was held liable

. 13 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

HELD: The decision must state the facts and the laws upon which the decision was based. Conclusions of law, facts and circumstances circumstances are not sufficient.

FACTS: BSI rendered decision on Sept. 11, 1961. BOC reviewed said decision and reversed BSI decision on Sept 4, 1962 but copy of the decision received Oct, and it was argued  that the decision should be received by the parties concerned  within the 1 year period  HELD: valid reversal *the sending and receipt of the decision not necessary to be within 1 year

*applies Ang Tibay (7)

…on who should make decisions DOH V CAMPOSANO FACTS: DOH issued order dismissing charged EEs based on the resolution of the PCAGC (when SEC of DOH expressly tasked to resolve the case) HELD: cannot delegate the power to decide on the case

3. Jurisdiction Admin agencies only exercise such powers as are -explicitly conferred -necessary implication …check enabling statute

*applies Ang TIbay (6)

*AMERICAN TOBACCO V DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, supra FACTS: Director of patents made rule that hearing would be held by subordinates, but he would still decide on the merits of the case HELD: Valid rule, cannot delegate the power to decide on a case but can delegate the power to hear the case

FELICIANO V DIRECTOR OF PATENTS FACTS: Director of patents asked to compel one of the parties to sign a contract  HELD: NO JURISDICTION -the validity of the contract is a civil law question which has to be resolved in a regular court of justice

REALTY EXCHANGE VENTURE CORP V SENDINO FACTS: HLURB decided a case in division, not en banc HELD: Enabling law of HLURB authorized the agency to adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business. -the power to delegate a particular function can be implied from the power of administrative administrative agencies to issue rules and regulations necessary necessary to carry out its functions.

SYQUIA V BOARD OF POWER AND WATERWORKS FACTS: Landlady who charged fro electricity charged with offense of selling electricity without permit  HELD: NO JURISDICTION -under Public Service Act, Board has jurisdiction over Public services and their franchises BUT since Syquia is not engaged in public service nor sale of electricity without permit, no  jurisdiction -the question that is purely civil in character to be adjudged under NCC by regular courts of justice

…on finality of order *VIVO V AROCHA (earlier case in BOC V DELAROSA) FACTS: board of special inquiry (BSI) decision reviewed by  BOC and reversed it. CA 613 empowers BOC to review decision either upon appeal or motu proprio within 1 year. It  was contested that the decision was already final when reviewed by BOC (BSI deci rendered July 6, 1961 and the BOC allegedly decided on July 6, 1962 but extenso report indicated  date was July 20, 1961 which was beyond the 1 year period  for review) HELD: The review was done within the 1 year period, which should be counter from the time the Commissioners as a board voted – not from the time when the extenso report was prepared -decision in extenso must relate back to the day the resolution to exclude was actually adopted

GO TEK V DEPORTATION BOARD FACTS: undesirable alien, prayed for immediate deportation of  Gotek for (1) being commander of US Guerilla unit; (2) Violation of A168 of RPC. Go Tek filed MD arguing that the said grounds were not among those grounds to deport an alien HELD: HAS JURISDICTION -state has inherent power to deport undesirable aliens aliens – POLICE POWERS -President has full discretion to determine desirability desirability of alien -EO for deportation not dependent upon prior judicial determination in criminal case

*BOC wanted an earlier date (in 1962) so that its review would be within the 1 year period

VERA V CUEVAS FACTS: BIR used s169 on skimmed mild to investigate on Filled milk manufacturers HELD: NO JURISDICTION -provision relied on was mere declaratory provision with no tax purpose, BIR had no jurisdiction *BIR has jurisdiction if law provides for tax purposes

NERIA V COI FACTS: Decision of BSI issued on Aug. 2, 1961. BOC reviewed  the decision pursuant to CA613 and rendered a decision on  Aug 8, 1962 but the records were altered to show that the decision was made Aug. 2. It was also argued that the date when the 1 year of reckoning would be made should be from September 1961 when the parties received  HELD: Alteration in this case was with malice. Decision already final and executory when BOC reversed it.

DE LA FUENTE V DE VEYRA FACTS: Smuggled goods confiscated by customs ordered to be released by CFI even if subject of seizure proceedings HELD: CFI has no jurisdiction -the collector of customs when sitting in a forfeiture proceeding constitutes constitutes a tribunal expressly vested by law with  jurisdiction to hear and determine subject matter without any interference from CFI

*BOC wanted to show that they made the decision within 1 yr period so altered the 1962 date to an earlier date. They were arguing that the 1 year should be computed from date of receipt of the decision so that they could have until September to review the case

GO YU TAK WAI V VIVO FACTS: BSI decision finding that Go Yu Tak Wai waas a Filipino citizen rendered Mar 27, 1961. BOI reviewed BSI decision and  rendered deci on Mar 11, 1962 excluding petitioner. Extenso report prepared only on Aug 1963. It was argued that the date of preparation of the written decision should also be within the 1 year period  HELD: NO. Vivo v Arocha case already held that date of  preparation of extenso relates back to the day when the Commissioners Commissioners voted and resolved to reverse BSI decision

***SINCE examples lang naman ung ibang cases, wag na….*** 4. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings arising from same facts GALANG V CA FACTS: illegal alien breached admin provision (not properly  documented) and criminal provision (fraudulent  representation as Filipino citizen)

*preparation of written decision not necessary to be within 1 year

SICHANGCO V BOC

. 14 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

HELD: The difference in the proceedings is not legal incompatibility incompatibility but merely physical incompatibility (cannot be tried simultaneously simultaneously since there is only 1 accused that would be required to appear before 2 separate courts) -2 proceedings independent of each other, involves different COA, can proceed simultaneously

***So summary on on-the-spot ocular surveys: Ocular surveys are proper only when 1. courts finds finds it neces necessary sary in in clearing clearing a doubt, doubt, reachi reaching ng a conclusion or finding the truth [phil. Movie pictures v premiere] 2. there are other other supportin supporting g eviden evidences ces which which might might be conflicting [estate of buan v pambusco]

*physical incompatibility

VILLANOS V SUBIDO FACTS: teacher made libelous statements against  superintendent so charged with libel (crim case) and  discourtesy and immoral conduct (admin case). She was found guilty of libel so it was argued that she should also be found guilty of the administrative charges against her  HELD: CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASE NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKES THE RESPONDENT GUILTY IN ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE - there are defenses, excuses, and attenuating circumstances of value in administrative administrative proceedings that are not admissible in trial of the criminal case which can have a blunting effect on the conviction.

V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS DECISIONS -an effective mechanism of checks and balance -usually involves (1) question of constitutionality constitutionality (2) history of the statute involved (3) nature of the problem -right or privilege -question of law or question of fact – only questions of law -question of discretion – not r eviewable eviewable unless with GAD -question of policy – not reviewable reviewable *BEFORE JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE RESORTED TO, DETERMINE 1. if could be subject to review 2. if administrative administrative remedies already exhausted 3. if there is concurrence of original jurisdiction over the issue, which court would decide 4. if the party seeking JR has standing

*no automatic conviction when criminally convicted

POLCOM v LOOD FACTS: Police officers guilty in administrative case, acquitted  in criminal case because of insufficiency of evidence. They’re arguing that they should be reinstated because their guilt was not proven in crim case. HELD: acquittal in criminal case does not carry with it relief  from administrative liability.

A.

Factors Factors affecting affecting finality finality of administrat administrative ive decisions SWITCHMEN’S UNION V NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD FACTS: Unions wanted a different bargaining representative for each bargaining unit but after an election, employees elected that they wanted one union to represent all of them. Union wanted a review of the Board’s order of election HELD: Courts cannot review decision of the board? *Where no judicial review was provided by Congress (in the enabling law) the SC has often refused to furnish one even where questions of law might be involved (since executive agencies were delegated to determine complicated questions of fact and of law). *Where congress has not expressly authorized judicial review: when JR may still be supplied: (1) type of problem involved (Question of  law/fact/discretion/policy) (2) history of statute in question (WON Congress intended JR)

*acquittal in criminal case has no effect on administrative case

OCAMPO V OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FACTS: training coordinator of NAICONSULT acquitted in criminal proceedings. He was dismissed from service (guilty in admin case) but he appealed, saying that his acquittal from crim proceedings should automatically dismiss the admin case against him HELD: acquittal in crim case no effect on admin case Difference - quantum of evidence required: guilt beyond reasonable doubt vs preponderance preponderance of evidence vs substantial evidence - procedure required - admissibility of evidence -sanctions imposed 5. Rules of evidence -apply specific rules of evidence of administrative administrative agency -administrative -administrative agencies not bound by technical rules of  evidence, evidence, so long as due process is observed (Ang Tibay v CIR case also mentioned that admin agencies not bound by technical rules in ordinary courts as long as due process is observed) -reason: flexibility and speed in dispensing with cases

*JR can’t be conducted if Congress did not intend review of agency’s actions

CHEVRON V NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL FACTS: Agency provided own definition of “stationary source”  of air pollution when the enabling law did not do so. CA set  aside said regulations HELD: Court cannot review definition given by agency -If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by r egulation. -A court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision or a r easonable interpretation interpretation made by the administrator or agency

PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS ASSN V PREMIER PRODUCTION FACTS: CIR conducted an ocular inspection and on that basis authorized lay-off of EEs HELD: ocular inspection is proper if the court finds it necessary but such is authorized ONLY TO HELP the court in clearing a doubt, reaching a conclusion or finding the truth. It is merely an auxiliary remedy.

*JR cannot be exercised when the action involves the filling-up function of the agency (when there is a valid delegation to ascertain facts and provide interpretative rules)

FORTRICH V CORONA FACTS: Sumilao farmers case. Earlier resolution decided that  land should be converted and developed. After lapse of period  to appeal (And no appeal was made), Office of the President  modified its decision. HELD: Modification VOID. -when no MFR seasonably filed, agencies decision final and executory and cannot be reviewed. The orderly administration of justice requires the judgments of courts and quasi-judicial quasi-judicial agencies reach a point of finality set by law, rules, and regulations

ESTATE OF BUAN V PAMBUSCO FACTS: Estate applies for CPC but Pambusco assails the application, alleging that there are sufficient routes already. Commission conducted an on-the-spot survey and decided  the case HELD: here, on the spot survey was proper since it was only used to confirm which among the conflicting evidences presented by the party is true

*JR cannot be done when judgment to be reviewed already final and executory

. 15 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~ (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5)

GAD Erro Errorr of of law law Frau Fraud d or collu collusi sion on Act violate violates s or fails fails to comply comply with mandat mandatory ory provision of law (6) Act corrup corrupt, t, arbitra arbitrary ry or capriciou capricious s *JR when admin agencies exercise QJ or legislative functions

ANITQUE SAWMILL V ZAYCO FACTS: public bidding already final when MFR filed beyond  reglementary period. HELD: MFR which was entertained VOID -non quieta movera: cannot disturb what is settled -although technical rules may be relaxed in administrative agencies in the interest of justice and equity, a period for appeal is JURISdICTIONAL, MANDATORY MANDATORY so cannot be relaxed

SUMMARY  GENERAL RULE: Courts may not review administrative actions ESPECIALLY WHEN (1) the enabling law does not pro vide for it and the Congress did not intend the actions to be reviewed (SWITCHMEN V NMB) (2) the action involved is an exercise of the agency of the Congress’ valid delegation of the power to “fill-up” gaps in the enabling law (CHEVRON V NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL) (3) the action is already FINAL and EXECUTORY (FORTRICH V CORONA) (4) the action involved exercise of discretion (UY v PALOMAR, SOTTO V RUIZ) (5) the action involves quasi-judicial quasi-judicial or legislative legislative powers of  the administrative agency (MANUEL V VILLENA, SMC V SOLE) (6) NO EXHAUSTIN OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES YET! Administrative agencies are deemed to be Reasoning: Administrative equipped with technical knowledge to determine administrative administrative questions and nonlegal matters (MANUEL V VILLENA) EXCEPTION (mostly enumerated in SMC v SOLE case): (1) when admin agency exceeded its authority or jurisdiction (2) when there is GAD – acted arbitrarily without regard to duty (3) when error of law involved (4) fraud or collusion (5) act violates law, or constitution

*Administrative agencies also observe strict compliance of reglementary periods

SOTTO V RUIZ FACTS: Director of posts refuses to mail publication of Sotto for containing “libelous matters”  HELD: Director of posts wrong! -although exercised discretion which is generally not subject to JR, actions of administrative administrative officers must be subject to revision by courts in case he had abused his discretion or exceeded his authority *JR available even if review of exercise of discretion when (1) abused his discretion; (2) exceeded his authority

*UY V PALOMAR FACTS: Director of posts refuses to mail Uy’s mail for  allegedly being a lottery  HELD: Director of posts wrong -The action of administrative administrative officer exercising discretion is subject to review by the courts in case he exceeded his authority or his act is palpably wrong, notwithstanding the absence of statutory provisions for such review *JR still available (even if exercise of discretion + Congress silent on JR) if action is (1) exceeded authority or (2) act is palpably wrong

***RULE ON JR ON EXERCISE OF DISCRETION OF ADMIN. AGENCIES: GR: NO JR when admin agencies exercise discretion EXCEPTION: (1) act is palpably wrong (2) exceeded authority [just use UY v PALOMAR]

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

*PASCUAL V PROVINCIAL BOARD FACTS: Pascual, elected mayor, was charged admistratively. Sought writ of prohibition from SC, CFI. HELD: No need for exhaustion of administrative administrative remedies GR: Where the law has delineated the procedure by which administrative administrative appeal or remedy could be effected, the same should be followed before recourse to judicial judicial action can be initiated X: rule of exhaustion will be relaxed where (1) GAD (2) Question Question in dispute dispute is is purely legal legal one, one, nothing nothing of an administrative nature to be or can be done (3) Steps Steps to be taken taken are are mere matters matters of form form and the administrative process (of judgment) is over (4) Administr Administrativ ative e remedy remedy is not exclusive exclusive but merel merely y cumulative or concurrent to judicial remedy (optional)

*MANUEL V VILLENA FACTS: Petitioner seeks annulment of decision of Director of  Public Forestry which dismissed the protest filed by the  petitioner  HELD: GR: courts refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken undertaken by administrative administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of their administrative administrative functions since they are better equipped technically technically to decide administrative questions and nonlegal factors X: (1) excee exceeded ded autho authorit rity y (2) exercise exercised d unconsti unconstitutio tutional nal powers powers (3) clearly clearly acted acted arbitraril arbitrarily y and without without regard regard to his duty (GAD) (4) decision decision vitiate vitiated d by fraud, imposi imposition tion or mistake mistake *JR on ordinary exercise of administrative administrative functions

ALZATE V ALDANA FACTS: Pending appeal, petitioner filed petition for mandamus for fear that the salary he was supposed to receive would be reverted to the general funds of the Government if not  disbursed. HELD: No need to exhaust administrative remedies X: requiring exhaustion of administrative administrative remedies would effect to nullification nullification of claim

*SMC V SOLE FACTS: EE allegedly violated company policy by buying the drugs given to his co-EEs, and was dismissed. DOLE ruled in favor of the EE. HELD: SUMMARY GR: there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize acts of administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative legislative power on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. -purpose of JR : (1) keep admin agency within its jurisdiction (2) protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions X: when JR proper (1) lack lack of of juri jurisdi sdicti ction on

CIPRIANO V MARCELINO FACTS: Petitioner deprived of her salary after resigning, filed   petitione for mandamus for treasurer to pay her salary. HELD: No need to exhaust administrative remedies X: doctrine of exhaustion of administrative administrative remedies should be relaxed when application may cause great and irreparable damage, oppressive and patently unreasonable (because if 

. 16 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

exhaust, inflation would render her salary due to be not worth much)

PAREDES V CA FACTS: Director of patents promulgated new rules. Registered patent agents filed petition for prohibition to enjoin enforcement of new rules HELD: should have exhausted -where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative administrative review, and provides a system of  administrative administrative appeal, or reconsideration, reconsideration, the courts, FOR REASONS OF LAW, COMITY, and CONVENIENCE, will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given opportunity to act and correct errors committed in the administrative forum.

(4) give administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and to dispose of the case X: (1) violat violation ion of of due proces process s (2) purely purely legal legal question question involved involved (3) action action patently patently illegal, illegal, excess excess in jurisdicti jurisdiction on (4) estoppel estoppel on on the part part of the agency agency concern concerned ed (5) irrepa irreparab rable le injur injury y (6) when respond respondent ent is a departmen departmentt secretary secretary whose whose acts bears the implied and assumed approval of the President (therefore, no need to appeal up to the president) (7) unrea unreason sonabl able e if exhau exhaust st (8) amount amount to nulli nullifica fication tion of the claim claim (9) subject subject matter matter is private private land land in a land land case case proceedings (10) rule does not provide for a PSA remedy (11) when there are circumstances circumstances indicating urgency of   JR same with PAAT v CA plus: (12) no administrative review review is provided by law (13) rule of qualified political political agency applies (14) issue of non-exhaustion of admin remedies remedies moot *pinakasummary

QUASHA V SEC FACTS: petitioners filed complaints with SEC but without  resorting to the procedure in SEC, appealed case with SC HELD: no need to exhaust X: when recourse would not be a plain, speedy and adequate remedy

*REGINO V PANGASINAN COLLEGES FACTS: student not allowed to take exams for failing to pay  P100 ticket for rave party, filed for damages HELD: no need to exhaust X: doctrine not applicable when complaint is for damages governed by NCC

REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Sequestration case. Only after 7 years did PCGG invoke the doctrine of administrative remedies HELD: No need to exhaust X: (1) estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine (2) where the challenged challenged administrative act is patently illegal amounting to lack of jurisdiction (3) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainang complainang (4) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice

C. Primary Jurisdiction -court of justice and administrative agency BOTH HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION JURISDICTION over a case -primary jurisdiction because when both have jurisdiction over the case, the case is handed over to the administrative agency which is deemed to have primary jurisdiction to hear the case

CORPUZ V CUADERNO FACTS: CB EE dismissed, filed case before CFI for certiorari… HELD: no need to exhaust administrative remedies X: doctrine not applicable when enabling law does not provide for administrative remedies. CS law cannot apply even if this covers government body because CB has own charter.

*TEXAS & PACIFIC V ABILENE FACTS: Abilene sued T&P for excessive rates before TC. T&P argued that ICC has jurisdiction to hear case regarding  propriety of rates HELD: ICC has primary jurisdiction -GR: courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one which requires the expertise of administrative agencies and the legislative intent on the matter is to have UNIFORMITY OF RULINGS. -can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the administrative agency -it is a question of the court yielding to the agency because of  the latter’s agency and DOES NOT AMOUNT TO OUSTER of the court X: If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction jurisdiction – not primary  jurisdiction but exclusive and original jurisdiction

*LOPEZ V CITY OF MANILA FACTS: Taxpayer assailed City ordinance increasing taxes on his land  HELD: should have exhausted X (addition to PAAT v CA) 1. Claim involved is so small (like in Cipriano v Marcelino) 2. strong public interest involved *SMART V NTC FACTS: parties assail constitutionality f NTC Circular HELD: No need to exhaust administrative remedies -doctrine applies ONLY WHERE THE ACT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CONCERNED WAS PERFORMED PURSUANT TO ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION, not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative quasi-legislative power. X: no need to exhaust administrative administrative remedies when (1) act pertains to rule-making or quasi-legislative quasi-legislative power; (2) constitutionality constitutionality of said rule is in question

*PHIL.GLOBALCOM *PHIL.GLOBALCOM V RELOVA FACTS: PhilGlobe applied for authority to establish a branch in Cebu but was opposed. Respondents filed PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF before TC HELD: Petition for declaratory relief PROPER GR: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction calls for application when there is such competence to act on the part of the administrative administrative body X: legal question which is more appropriate for the judiciary than the administrative agency to resolve

*ESTRADA V CA FACTS: petitioners seek to nullify lease contract that would cause pollution to Subic HELD: should exhaust administrative remedies GR: exhaust administrative administrative remedies Reasoning: (1) lesser expenses (2) speedier disposition of controversies (3) reasons of comity and convenience

VIADAD V RTC FACTS: teachers dismissed for failing to comply with returnto-work orders. Filed petition for prohibition…

. 17 .

Administrative Law Reviewer

~*.*Cha Mendoza*.*~

HELD: doctrine applies (although there is no concurrence in  jurisdiction) EFFECT OF DOCTRINE: It behooves the court to suspend its action on the case pending before it pending the final outcome of the administrative administrative proceedings. INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES V CA FACTS: IEI entered a MOA with the MMIC wherein IEI assigned its rights over the mining block. IEI filed case for rescission with RTC to rescind MOA. BED has jurisdiction to determine who could develop said mining blocks HELD: doctrine applies -doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies applies when proceedings initiated with courts but admin agency also has jurisdiction over the case and then the question involved requires the expertise, specialized specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative administrative agency: (1) technical matters; (2) intricate questions of facts involved -EFFECT: merely suspend judicial proceedings, does not dismiss it CONRAD V CA FACTS: Dispute over the use of the tradename “SUNSHINE “SUNSHINE BISCUITS”. BISCUITS”. The tradename was already registered with BPTTT then the losing party filed suit with RTC for injunction with damages HELD: doctrine DOES NOT APPLY X: the issue involved is clearly a factual question that does not require specialized skills and knowledge for resolution to  justify the exercise of primary jurisdiction PHIL VETERANS BANK V CA FACTS: Appealed just compensation compensation for land of PVB HELD: DAR has jurisdiction, not RTC -even if concurrent jurisdiction, decision rendered in admin agency’s primary jurisdiction is still subject to review of the ordinary courts D. Standing to Challenge

. 18 .