Administrative Law Reviewer (Finals)

Chapter 1 General Considerations Administrative Law  Dean Roscoe Pound - “That branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community, as under the laws regulating the public interest; professions; trades and callings; rates and prices; laws for protection of public health and safety; and the promotion of public convenience”.  Professor Goodnow - “That part of the public law which fixes the organization of the government and determines the competence of the authorities who execute the law and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of his right”.  Justice Frankfurter - “Branch of law which deals with the field of legal control exercised by lawadministering agencies other than courts, and the field of control exercised by courts over such agencies.”  Object and scope of Admin Law: The regulation of private right for public welfare.  Origin of Admin Law – Legislation  Justification of Admin Law – Expediency  Admin law resulted from the following: (a) pervasive prolixity of the modern age (b) the increasing difficulties confronting the government  Two Major Powers of an Administrative Agency (1) Quasi-legislative authority or rule-making power (2) Quasi-judicial power or adjudicatory function Development of administrative law Separation of Powers

Duties

Legislative

Laid down all rules of conduct

Executive

Direct and enforcement of rules of conduct

Judiciary

Application and interpretation of rules of conduct

Difficulties as the population grew and people's activities multiplied To deal directly & expeditiously w/ every problem To directly decide controversies w/c presented mostly only factual issues Task of enforcement of the law became more complicated

1|Administrative Law Reviewer

Other reasons for development Separation of powers

Legislative

Executive

Judiciary

 No longer had either the time or the needed expertise to attend to these new problems.  Lack of interest as most of these problems did not immediately affect the constituent of its members.  No longer had either the time or the needed expertise to attend to these new problems  Natural reluctance to interfere with this problems which they felt were the concern of and should be resolve the executive department

 The obvious solution was DELEGATION OF POWER.  Effect of delegation: The legislature is able to relieve itself of the responsibility to legislate directly on relatively minor matters and of attending as well to the adjudication of essentially factual questions that more properly pertain to the executive authorities. In this manner, the legislature can concentrate on matters of national and greater significance.  Present status of administrative law: (a) Still in the state of flux (b) Boundaries are as yet undefined (c) Still undergoing a process of experimentation (d) Proceeds on a trial-and-error basis as it seeks to discover the most acceptable ways  Sources of Administrative Law (1) Constitutional or Statutory enactments creating administrative bodies. (2) Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of administrative bodies and their defining powers, rights, inhibitions, among others, and the effects of their determinations and regulations. (3) Rules and regulations issued by the administrative bodies in pursuance of the purpose for which they were created.

(4) Determinations and orders of the administrative bodies in the settlement of controversies arising in their respective fields.

Administration Distinguish Government from Administration

Government

Administration

Agency / instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized.

Transitional in nature, which actually mans the government and is more or less permanent fixture in every State.

 Administration understood in 2 senses (1) Institution (2) Function Administration as an Institution  Refers to the aggregate individuals in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being  Refers to the persons who actually run the government during their prescribed term of office  Includes all the personnel in the executive branch who are charged with the enforcement of the law Administration as a Function  Actual running of the government by the executive authorities through the enforcement of the law and the implementation of the policies.  Administration as an activity (1) Internal Administration (2) External Administration Internal Administration  Covers those rules defining the relations of public functionaries inter se  Embraces the whole range of the law of public officials.  Rules laid down in a particular agency or office  Examples: prescribing work assignments or job descriptions and uniforms; procedures for submission of reports External Administration  Defines the relations of the public office with the public in general  Do not necessarily affect the personnel of the office but are promulgated by observance by 2|Administrative Law Reviewer

those who have dealings or transactions with the said office  These rules are promulgated by the administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-legislative authority for the regulation of specific matters placed under its jurisdiction.  Examples: Energy Regulatory Board on adjustments in the rates charged by distributors of electricity; POEA on recruitment for overseas employment Administration distinguished from law

Administration

Law

Preventive

Punitive (command with sanctions to be applied in case of violation)

Personal

Impersonal

Has more sympathetic regard for the individual

Steps back and fold its arm and maintains a watchful eyes on those who violate its order

Seeks to individual punishment

Pounced upon and visited with the threatened punishment

spare from

the the

Clarify certain ambiguous provisions in statutes through the issuance of the interpretative regulations

Viewed as balancing factor

welcome

Harshness

Chapter 2 Administrative Agency Administrative Agency  A body endowed with quasi- legislature and quasi- judicial powers for the purpose of enabling it to carry out laws entrusted to it for enforcement or execution. Agency  Any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to the licensing functions; government

corporation with respect to function regulating private rights, privileges, occupation or business; and officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law. Government instrumentality  Agency of the National Government not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some or ifnot all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy.( Malaga vs. Penachos Jr.)

Chartered institution  Agency organized or operating under a special charter, and vested by law with fictions relating the specific constitutional policies or objectives. Department  An executive department created by law. Bureau  Any principal subdivision of department Office  Refers within the framework of the Government organization, to any major functional unit of a department or bureau, including Regional office. Instrumentality  Any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special function. Agency attached to the department  Lateral relationship between the department or its equivalent and the attached agency or corporation for the purpose of policy and program coordination.  Note: An attached agency has a larger measure of independence from the Department to which it is attached than one which is under departmental supervision and control or administrative supervision.  Note: The purpose of attachment is merely for “policy and program coordination.”  Note: The Administrative Code provides that supervision and control shall not apply to chartered institutions attached to a Department. Authority  Term used to designate both incorporated and non-incorporated agencies or instrumentalities of the government. Government owned and controlled corporation

3|Administrative Law Reviewer

 Any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation vested with functions related to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the government directly or through its instrumentalities, either wholly or, where applicable, as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least 51% of its capital stock, is a government-owned or controlled corporation. Nature of an Administrative Agency  It is an arm of the legislature in so far as it is authorized to promulgate rules that have the force of law by virtue of valid delegation of legislative power.  May be considered as a court because it performs a function of a particular judicial character, as when it decides factual and sometimes even legal questions as an incident of its general power of regulation.  Basically, an administrative agency pertains to the executive department because its principal function is the implementation of the law in accordance with the policies and instructions laid down by the legislature. *Administrative bodies (board, commission, authority, administration, bureau, agency, council, committee, office)

 Classification of administrative bodies (1) Those set up to offer some gratuity, grant or special privileges. (Philippine Veterans Association) (2) Those set up to carry on certain actual business of government. (Bureau of Customs) (3) Those set up to perform some business service for the public. (now defunct Bureau of Posts) (4) Those set up to regulate business affected with public interest. (LTFRB) (5) Those set up to regulate private business and individuals under the police power. (SEC) (6) Those set up to adjust individual controversies because of some strong social policy involved. (NLRC) Creation and Abolition of Administrative Agencies  Constitution - may be altered or abolish ONLY through constitutional amendments.  Statute - may be amended or repealed by legislature in good faith.  Advantages of Administrative Agency (1) Expertise derived from specialized training and experience. (2) Adaptability to change and ease in reacting to a new emergency situation.

Relation to Regular Departments

Judicial Department

The administrative body acts as an agent of the lawmaking body and so is bound to obey and implement the legislative will.

Legislative Department

Executive Department

Note: Courts of justice as a matter of policy, review administrative adjudications only as a last resort and, usually, only when questions of law are involved.

Note: Insofar as it is a creature of the legislature, it (administrative body) may be abolished at its will, or its incidents (such as salary and emoluments or appropriations attached thereto) altered in the discretion of the legislature. Effect: The legislature exerts a great deal of influence upon the administrative body that can impair its independence.

The administrative agency pertains to the executive department and so comes under the constitutional control of the President, which control cannot be withdrawn or limited even by the legislature. Note: The President may issue his own orders to the administrative agency and review and, if necessary revise or even reverse its decisions. Effects: - The administrative agency cannot claim independence from the executive department given the power of control exercised by the President. - Anomalous situation where a delegate of the legislature must not only

The courts may review the factual findings of administrative offices by authority of law, or when necessary under the due process clause, if such determinations have been made arbitrarily. 4|Administrative Law Reviewer

The courts can review, or even reverse, the administrative acts even of the Chief Executive.

Chapter 3 Powers of Administrative Agencies  Classification of the powers of the administrative bodies: (1) Quasi-legislative (2) Quasi-judicial Quasi-legislative  Otherwise known as the power of subordinate legislation. It permits the body to promulgate rules intended to carry out the provisions of particular laws. The jurisdiction of the administrative body is quasi-legislative if it prescribes a rule for the future. The nature of the quasi-legislative power is public. Quasi-judicial  Otherwise known as the power of adjudication. It enables the administrative body to resolve in a manner essentially judicial, factual and sometimes even legal questions incidental to its primary power of enforcement of law. It prescribes a rule for the past and is private in nature.

The Quasi-Legislative Power  It may be defined as the authority delegated by the law-making body to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a law and implement legislative policy. Distinction of Legislative Power from Quasi-Legislative power Quasi-legislative power

Legislative power

Includes the power to issue administrative rules and regulations. It also gives discretion to administrative bodies to determine how the

The power to promulgate laws and the kind of discretion given to the legislature is to determine what the law shall be.

law shall be enforced.

 Source: The power to promulgate administrative regulations is derived from the legislature by virtue of a valid delegation. This may be expressed or implied.  Tests of Delegation (1) Completeness test – the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that when it reaches the delegate, it will have nothing to do but to enforce it. (2) Sufficient Standard test – the law must offer a sufficient standard to specify the limits of the delegate’s authority, announce the legislative policy, and specify the conditions under which it is to be implemented. The standard is usually embodied in the law itself. Among the accepted sufficient standards are: public interest, simplicity, economy and efficiency, and public welfare.

Quasi-Judicial Power  It has been defined as the power of the administrative authorities to make determinations of facts in the performance of their official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts so found. The exercise of this power is only incidental to their main function, which is the enforcement of the law. However, their determination of legal questions is subject to review by the courts of justices.  The quasi-judicial power is incidental to the power of regulation vested in the administrative body but it is often expressly conferred by the legislature through specific provisions in the charter of the agency. This power is needed to enable the administrative officers to perform their executive duties.

o

o

Summary power – are those involving the use by administrative authorities of force upon persons or things without the necessity of previous judicial warrant. Examining power – enables the administrative body to inspect the records and premises, and investigate the activities, of persons or entities coming under its jurisdiction. This will include:  Issuance of subpoenas  Swearing in of witnesses  Interrogation of witnesses  Calling for production of books, papers and records  Requiring that books, papers and records be made available for inspection  Inspection of premises  Requiring written answers to questionnaires  Requiring the filing of statements

Exercise of Powers The duties of administrative bodies are generally considered discretionary, especially as they involve the interpretation or construction and enforcement of the law and the appreciation of factual questions that may be submitted to it for resolution. Some administrative duties are ministerial which means that no judgment or discretion is required or allowed in their exercise.

Chapter 4 The Quasi-Legislative Power  Kinds of Administrative Regulations (1) Legislative Regulation (2) Interpretative Regulation

Determinative Powers Classification of determinative powers: (1) Enabling powers – are those that permit the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate and which would be unlawful without government approval. (2) Directing powers – order the doing or performance of particular acts to ensure compliance with the law and are often exercised for corrective purposes. o Dispensing power – allows the administrative officer to relax the general operation of a law or exempt from the performance of a general duty. 5|Administrative Law Reviewer

Legislative Regulation  Accorded by the courts or by express provision of statute the force and effect of law immediately upon going into effect  The administrative agency is supplementing the statute, filling in the details or “making the law,” and usually acting pursuant to a specific delegation of legislative power  In the nature of subordinate legislation designed to implement a primary legislation providing the details thereof  Issued pursuant to a valid delegation of legislative power  Classification of Legislative Regulation:

(1) Supplementary - intended to fill in the details of the law and “to make explicit what is only general” (2) Contingent - issued upon the happening of a certain contingency which the administrative body is given the discretion to determine or to ascertain some circumstances and on the basis thereof may enforce or suspend the operation of a law.

Interpretative Regulation  Are those which purport to do no more than interpret the statute being administered, to say what it means  Constitutes the administrator's construction of a statute  Issued by the administrative body as an incident to its power to enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify its provisions for proper observance by the people.  At best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means (Peralta vs. CSC)

 Requisites of Administrative Regulation (1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature. (2) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature. (3) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure. (4) It must be reasonable. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature.  Authority to promulgate the regulation is usually conferred by the Charter itself of the administrative body or by the law it is supposed to enforce.  Limitation: When Congress authorizes promulgation of administrative rules and regulations to implement given legislation, all that is required is that the regulation be not in contravention with it, but to conform to the standards that the law prescribes. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature.  Assuming a valid authorization, it is still necessary that the regulation promulgated must not be ultra vires or beyond the authority conferred.  The rule-making power of a public administrative body is a delegated legislative power, which it may not use either to abridge the authority given by congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended. (Conte vs. COA)  In the case of People vs. Maceren, the issued a regulation prohibiting “electro-fishing” was challenged on the ground that the Secretary of DENR exceeded the powers conferred upon him 6|Administrative Law Reviewer

since the law did not prohibit fishing byy electricity. The SC ruled that the Secretary of Agriculture and Commissioner of Fisheries were powerless to penalize it. “ 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.”  In Bautista vs Juinio, the SC sustained a letter of instruction prohibiting private extra-heavy and heavy vehicles from using public streets on weekends and holidays but annulled as ultra vires the administrative regulation calling for the impounding of the offending vehicles. As the penalty imposed by the law was only a fine and suspension of registration, the Court declared that “ the impounding of a vehicle finds no statutory justification.”  In Metropolitan Traffic Command vs. Gonong, the SC declared the removal by traffic enforcers of the license plates of illegally parked vehicle as illegal. Said law did not include the removal of license plates, or even the confiscation of the license of the offending driver as a penalty for illegal parking. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure.  As in the enactment of laws, the promulgation of administrative regulations of general application does not require previous notice and hearing, the only exception being where the legislature itself requires it . In the absence of such a requirement, the administrative body can promulgate the regulation in its exclusive discretion.  But where the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy between specific parties, it is considered an administrative adjudication and so will require notice and hearing.  As for publication, the applicable rule is now found in Executive Order No. 200 which provides that laws “shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.”  Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.  Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the law.  The Supreme Court, it would seem, requires publication of the administrative regulation only

if it is of general application and penal in nature. It must be reasonable.  Like statutes, administrative regulations promulgated thereunder must not be unreasonable or arbitrary as to violate due process.  In Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. Board of Transportation, the SC declared the regulation phasing out taxicabs more than 6 years old as reasonable, holding that its purpose was to promote the convenience and comfort and protect the safety of the passengers. (police power)

Penal Regulations  The power to define and punish crime is exclusively legislative and may not be delegated to the administrative authorities. While administrative regulations may have the force and effect of law, their violation cannot give rise to criminal prosecution unless the legislature makes such violation punishable and imposes the corresponding sanctions.  Special requisites of a valid administrative regulation with a penal sanction: (1) The law itself must make violation of the administrative regulation punishable; (2) The law itself must impose and specify the penalty for the violation of the regulation; (3) The regulation must be published.

Construction and Interpretation  Regulation should be read in harmony with the statute and not in violation of the authority conferred on the administrative authorities.  The administrative regulation that contravenes the statute is, of course, invalid. Enforcement  It is established that the power to promulgate administrative regulations carries with it the implied power to enforce them. This may be effected through judicial action or through sanctions that the statute itself may allow the administrative body to impose. Amendment or Repeal  Like the statute, the administrative regulation promulgated thereunder is subject to amendment or repeal by the authorities that promulgated them in the first place.  May be changed directly by the legislature.

7|Administrative Law Reviewer

Chapter 5 The Quasi-Judicial Power Quasi-Judicial Power  Also known as the administrative agency’s power of adjudication, is the power of the administrative agency to determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself. “Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction”  Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts will not determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. Will adherence to the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction result to overlapping with the functions of regular courts of justice? No. If a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the court is had even if the matter may well be within the latter's proper jurisdiction. The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court. “Quasi-judicial function”  Refers to the actions or discretions of public administrative officers or bodies , that are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.  Requisites to exercise quasi-judicial power (1) Jurisdiction (must be properly acquired by the administrative body) (2) Due process (must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings)

JURISDICTION  The competence of an office or body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question. Without jurisdiction, the determination made by the administrative bodies are absolutely null and without any legal effect whatsoever.

Which entity has the power to confer jurisdiction? It is the legislature that has the power to confer jurisdiction upon the administrative body and so limit or expand its authority.It is a well-settled principle that unless expressly empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial power. Are the courts of justice vested with jurisdiction over commissions in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions? In the exercise of quasi-judicial functions, the Commission is a co-equal body with the RTC and coequal bodies have no power to control the other. (PCGG v. Peña). Are there scope and limits in the exercise of quasijudicial functions of administrative bodies? The law may allow some administrative bodies to award certain kinds of damages while denying the same power, for no apparent reason, to other administrative bodies. For example, the SEC and NLRC are allowed to award damages virtually to the same extent as a court of justice. Yet similar authority has not been conferred by its charter to NTC. Cases: Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights Commission on Human Rights has no power to adjudicate over certain cases like alleged human rights violations involving civil or political rights. The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it investigate (fact-finding). Lastimosa v. Vasquez The Ombudsman’s power to investigate and prosecute includes the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or connected with, or arise from the performance of his official duty. International Broadcasting Corporation v. Jalandoon The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has jurisdiction over any intra-corporate controversy which may have arisen from ownership of shares of stocks. Syquia v. Board of Power and Water Works The regulatory board has no jurisdiction over over petitioner'scontractual relations with respondentscomplainants as her tenants, since petitioner is not engaged in a public servicenor in the sale of electricity without permit or franchise. This case gives rise to a question purely civil in character that is to be adjudged under the provisions of the Civil Code and not the Public Service Act. Manila Electric Company v. Court of Appeals 8|Administrative Law Reviewer

It is the regular courts’ power to adjudicate cases involving violations of rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. RCPI v. Board of Communications The respondent administrative body did not have the power to impose fines upon petitioner for non-delivery of telegrams, resulting in mental anguish and extra expenses to addressees. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Compnay v. WMC Resources Int’l Pty. Ltd The Mines and Geosciences Bureau has jurisdiction over a controversy pertaining to mining rights. Boiser vs. Court of Appeals The National Telecommunications Commission is not authorized to adjudicate breach of contract cases, much less award moral and exemplary damages. Davao New Town Dev’t Corp. v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) The jurisdiction of COSLAP is confined only to disputes over lands in which the government has proprietary or regulatory interest.

National Federation of Labor v. Eisma The labor arbiterhas the power to award damages arising from picketing. Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation v. National Irrigation Administration The National Irrigation Administrator (NIA) Administrator has the power of granting claims. Said power can necessarily be implied from its express power of adjudication. Southern Cross Cement Corp. Manufacturers Assoc. of the Phils.

v.

Cement

The Department of Trade and Industry has no intrinsic right, absent statutory authority, to reverse the findings of the Tariff Commission. 1. Rules of Procedure Where an administrative body is expressly granted the power of adjudication, it is also deemed vested with the implied power to prescribe the rules to be observed in the conduct of its proceedings (Angara v. Electoral Commission).

“Doctrine of Implication”  States that what is implied in the language of a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. Thus, the incidental power to promulgate the rules necessary for the proper exercise of its exclusive power must be deemed necessary by implication to be lodged in administrative bodies such as the Electoral Commission. What method of procedure should be used? When the statute does not require any particular method of procedure to be followed by an administrative agency, the agencymay adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions (Provident Tree Farms, Inc. v. Batario, Jr). However, the rules of the agency must not violate fundamental rights or encroach upon constitutional prerogatives(Phil.Lawyers Assoc. v. Agrava). How should the administrative rules of procedure be construed? Administrative rules of procedure should be construed liberally. In order to:1) to promote their object; and, 2) to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses(Agusmin Promotional Enterprises, Inc.v. CA). The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to the rules of procedure of administrative bodies exercising judicial powers unless otherwise provided by law or the rules of procedure of the administrative agency concerned (Samalio v.CA). Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the SC (Constitution Art.8, Sec. 5(5)). The power of administrative agencies to promulgate rules of procedure does not or cannot be construed as allowing it to “grant itself jurisdiction” since rules of procedure areremedial in nature and cover only rules on pleadings and practice(DARAB v.Lubrica). 2. The Subpoena Power General Rule: The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is not inherent in administrative bodies. Administrative bodies may summon witnesses and require the production of evidence only when 1) duly allowed by law, and 2) in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid or Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case falls. Exception: The power to issue subpoena may be expressly granted in the charter of the administrative body. 9|Administrative Law Reviewer

The Court may punish contumacy or refusal to obey as contempt. In Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights, the Supreme Court distinguishedbetween the power to “investigate” and the power to “adjudicate” Power to Investigate  Means to examine, explore, inquire, delve or probe into;  to follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation  Purpose is tofind out, to learn, obtain information

Power to Adjudicate 

 

Means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, determine, resolve, rule on, settle; to settle in the exercise of judicial authority Purpose is tosettle, decide or resolve a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the law

Cases: Carmelo v. Ramos Authority to conduct an investigation does not necessarily mean it can also summon witnesses and take testimony in the absence of a clear grant of this power from the legislature Pascual v.Board of Medical Examiners The constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination extends to administrative proceedings which possess a criminal or penal aspect. The Board of Medical Examiners cannot compel the person proceeded against to take the witness stand without his consent.

3. The Contempt Power Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for contempt is essentially judicial and cannot be claimed as an inherent right by the administrative body. To be validly exercised, it must be expressly conferred upon the body and, additionally, must be used only in connection with its quasi-judicial as distinguished from its purely administrative or routinary functions. As a rule, where, say, a subpoena of the administrative body is disregarded, the person summoned may not be directly discipline by that body. The proper remedy id for the administrative body to seek assistance of the courts of justice for the enforcement of its order. The power to hold in contempt must be exercised not on the vindictive, but on the preservative principle. Cases: Tolentino v. Inciong A labor official’s power to hold a person for contempt for refusal to comply with its order cannot extend to a

CFI judge; remedy of administrative official- seek a dismissal of the case before the court precisely on the ground that the matter did not fall within the domain of the powers conferred on it. Dumarpa v.Dimaporo The power to hold in contempt must be exercised on the preservative principle. Land Bank of the Phils.v. Listana Quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for indirect contempt can only do so by initiating them in the proper RTC.

DUE PROCESS General Rule: The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-observance will as a rule invalidate the administrative proceedings. Persons are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting their interests so that, if they are minded, they may claim the right to appear therein and present their side or refute the position of opposing parties. When can the administrative agency deny notice and hearing? (EXP to GR)  The right to notice and hearing can be dispensed with in the following instances: (1) Urgency of the immediate action (2) Tentativeness of the administrative action (3) The right had previously been offered but not claimed Some accepted exceptions:  Summary abatement of a nuisance per se –e.g. mad dog on the loose which can be killed outright as a matter of self-defense  Preventive suspension of a public servant facing administrative charges  Padlocking of filthy restaurants or theatres showing obscene movies – threat to public health and decency  The cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution  The summary distraint and levy of property of a delinquent taxpayer  Replacement of a temporary or acting appointee What rights or principles should be observed in administrative proceedings?  The cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administrative proceedings are the following: (1) right to a hearing- includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof; 10 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the evidence must have something to support its decision; (4) the evidence must be substantial- relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; Rationaleto free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules (5) the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; boards of inquiry- their report and decision are only advisory (6) the Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision; (7) the Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decisions rendered It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the administrative question be impartial, to ensure a fair decision. Cases: Montemayor v. Bundalian: The burden is on the complainant to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.Administrative decisions of the executive branch of the government must be respected so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. Administrative decisions in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of 1)gross abuse of discretion, 2)fraud, or 3)error of law. Zambales Chromite v. CA: it is grave abuse of discretion for a department secretary to review his own decision while Director of Mines; Remedy:he should ask his undersecretary to review a decision rendered by him. Rivera v. CSC: the reviewing officer must be other than the officer whose decision is under review. Corona v.CA: the aggrieved party should not be one and the same official upon whose lap the complaint he has filed may eventually fall on appeal; nemopotestessesimul actor etjudex- No man can be at once a litigant and judge. Caoile v. Vivo: the law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of the decision of the board of special inquiry on the basis of the evidence previously presented.

Marvel Bldg.v. Ople: no denial of due process if petitioners received notice of the scheduled investigation the day before said date of the hearing or investigation Alvarez v.Ople: there was denial where the decision was rendered against a person who was not a party to or even notified of the proceedings taken before a labor arbiter. Globe v. NTC: hearing is essential before a fine may be imposed. Pefianco v. Moral: administrative resolution- basis for any further remedies that a respondent in an administrative case might wish to pursue. Sec. of Justice v. Lantin: Reqt’s of Quasi-Judicial Proceeding- 1) taking and evaluation of evidence, 2) determining facts based on the evidence presented, 3) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved. Phil.Merchant Marine School Inc. v. CA: findings of fact of administrative departments are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts. American Tobacco Co.v. Dir. of Patents: the officer who makes the determination must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them. Valladolid v.Inciong: no denial of the right to due process on the basis of position papers submitted by the parties. GMCR, Inc.v. Bell Telecomm. Phils. Inc.: the vote alone of the Chairman of Commission is not sufficient to legally render an NTC order, resolution or decision. Quiambao v.CA: where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process. Autencio v. Manara: appeal/motion reconsiderationremedy to cure defects in procedural process Boyboy v.Yabut: Gen. Rule- trial-type proceeding is not required; Exception- where the findings are necessarily to be based on the credibility of the witnesses or complaints.  ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS: (1) there must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or property which is the subject of the proceedings; (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing (NAPOCOR v.Chiong). 11 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

Javier v. COMELEC The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. ERB v. CA Complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. Administrative Appeals and Review General Rule: An appeal from a final decision of the administrative agency may be taken to the department head, whose decision may further be brought to the regular courts of justice, in accordance with the procedure specified by law. Exception: Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order

Enforcement of Decision How can appeal be made? In the absence of any statute providing for the enforcement of an administrative determination, the same cannot be enforced except possibly by appeal to the force of public opinion. It is an administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecutions (CAB vs. PAL). A writ of mandamuslies to enforce a ministerial duty or the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust or station (San Luis v. CA).  Sanctions for Enforcement of decisions: (1) Revocation of or refusal to renew licenses (2) Destruction of unlawful articles e.g. pornographic materials and narcotic drugs or marijuana (3) Summary closure of stores found engaged in profiteering or hoarding (4) Refusal to grant clearances (5) issuance of “cease and desist” orders to public utility companies from charging excessive rates (6) Detention and deportation of aliens (7) Imposition of fines Res Judicata General Rule: The decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine res judicata (Brillantes v. Catro).

Exceptions: (1) when it is repugnant to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy(Republic v. CA) (2) labor relations proceedings(Nasipit Lumber Company, Inc. v. NLRC) (3) exercise of administrative powers, (4) judgments based on prohibited or null and void contracts. 

An administrative officer may revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of his predecessor in office if he becomes satisfied that a different construction should be given.

Note: -Petition for review (appeal) shall be perfected within 15 days from the receipt of the final administrative decision. -1 motion for reconsideration may be allowed. -If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. -If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the appellant shall have 15 days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. -It shall be filed in the court specified by the statute or in its absence, in any court of competent jurisdiction. -It shall be supported by substantial evidence except when specially provided otherwise by law.

Chapter 6 Judicial Review General Rule: Administrative decisions are not reviewable by courts of justice. (Non appealable to courts of justice) Exceptions: (1) If the Constitution or the law permits it. (2) If the issues to be reviewed involve questions of law.

-In the absence of specific rules governing appeals from 2 administrative decisions, the special civil action s and other remedies provided for in the Rules of Court may be availed in proper cases by an aggrieved party. (2) If the issues to be reviewed involve questions of law. Extent --- There can be appeal even without legislative permission (kahit walang batas na nagsasabi na pwede) or even against legislative prohibition (kahit sabihin pa ng batas na di pwede mag-appeal) >> Why?

General Rule: Administrative decisions are not reviewable by courts of justice. (Non appealable to courts of justice) Why? --- The right to appeal is not a constitutional right nor is it embraced in the right to be heard as guaranteed by due process --- It is a recognized principle that courts of justice will generally not interfere in the executive and administrative matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies. (eg. grant of licenses, permits, leases or the approval, rejection or revocations of applications thereof) Effect --- The administrative decision may be validly rendered final and non appealable at the administrative level without allowing the aggrieved party a final resort to the courts of justice. Exceptions: (1) If the Constitution or the law permits it.

1

1

Constitution --- In the case of Constitutional Commissions (COMELEC, COA, CSC), “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution or by law, any decision, order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof” ART. IX, A, Section 7

12 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

Administrative Code --- Generally provides that an appeal/petition for review from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within 15 days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order. RA 5434 – decisions of the Social Security Commission and the Civil Aeronautics Board, etc. appealable to the Court of Appeals -- An appeal from a final award, order or decision of the Patent Office shall be taken by filling with the Patent Office and with the CA a notice of appeal within 15 days from the notice of such award, order or ruling. PD 612 --- The aggrieved party in proceedings taken before the Insurance Commissioner may appeal from its decisions in the manner as provided by law and by the rules of court for appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals to the Court of Appeals. Interim Rules and Guidelines implementing Sec. 9 (3) BP Blg. 129 – the CA may “review final decisions, orders, awards or resolutions of regional trial courts and all of quasi-judicial bodies except the COMELEC, the COA, the Sandiganbayan, and decisions issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board of Assessments. Other appeals prescribed by special laws – eg. RA No. 1125 providing for appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals of any decision rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, or any provincial or city board of assessment appeals.

2

Habeas corpus, quo warranto, prohibition, mandamus, etc...

-

The court cannot be deprived of their inherent authority to decide questions of law, initially or by way of review of administrative decisions.

-

It is generally understood that, as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power, there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law or jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute.

 If the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court.  When does it apply? It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body.  What is the effect when this doctrine is applied? The judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its review. (Note: The application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not call for the dismissal of the case. It need only be suspended until after matters within the competence of the administrative bodies are threshed out and determined.)

Note: - The Supreme Court may review the decisions of the Office of the President on questions of law and jurisdiction when properly raised. (No judicial supremacy in this case. WHY? --It is the SC’s duty enjoined by the Constitution as part of the system of checks and balances.)

 Methods of review are prescribed by: (1) The Constitution (2) Statutes (3) Rules of Court  Methods of Review may be: (1) Specific (2) General

 Why is the observance of this doctrine important? (1) To ensure the consistency in administrative findings and also because of the conceded expertise of the administrative body as compared to the judicial tribunal in resolving administrative questions in general. (2) Compliance to the doctrine of separation of powers.

 Requisites before there can be judicial review/appeal through certiorari or prohibition of determinations of administrative officers or agencies (1) Before certiorari or prohibition may be entertained, it must be shown that all the administrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been exhausted. (2) The administrative decision may be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the administrative official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

 Calls for the determination of administrative questions3 by administrative agencies rather than courts of justice.  Does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.

 2 Doctrines that must be considered in connection with the judicial review of administrative decisions (1) Doctrine of primary jurisdiction (2) Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies

administrative

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

*It has been the jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies.

3

Ordinarily are questions of fact or technical matters which only specialized administrative boards or commissions with special knowledge and experience are capable of hearing and deciding.

13 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

*In accordance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the administrative process must continue up to the highest level before resort to judicial tribunals may be sought.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  An administrative decision must first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review.  Recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies would have first been exhausted. If a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts.  Underlying principle of this doctrine: Presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly.

 Reasons for the doctrine: (law, comity, and convenience) (1) The administrative superiors, if given the opportunity can correct the errors committed by their subordinates. (2) Courts should as much as possible refrain from disturbing the findings of administrative bodies in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers. (3) On practical grounds, it is best that the courts, which are burdened enough as they are with judicial cases, should not be saddled with the review of administrative cases. (4) Judicial review of administrative cases is usually effected through special civil actions of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, which are available only if there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

General Rule: Application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

(3) When the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (4) When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned. (5) When there is irreparable injury5. (6) When the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter. (7) When to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable (as when the claim involved is small). (8) When strong public interest is involved. (9) When the issues submitted have become moot and academic. (10)When it would amount to the nullification of the claim. (11)When the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings. (12) When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. (13) When there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.  Effect of premature resort to the courts: The case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. (The only effect of noncompliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.)  When must non exhaustion of administrative remedies be raised or invoked? – It must be raised at the earliest possible time, even before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting the claim, by a motion to dismiss.  What is the effect when it is not seasonably invoked? – This ground for dismissal (exhaustion of administrative remedies) would be deemed waived and the court may proceed to hear the case. *The court has the discretion to require the observance of the doctrine and may, if it sees fit, dispense with it and proceed with the disposition of the case. *A motion for reconsideration must be filed before the special civil action for certiorari may be availed of.

Exceptions: (1) When there is a violation of due process. (2) When the issue involved is purely legal.4 5 4

E.g. Want of authority; interpretation of the scope of one’s constitutional right

14 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

The doctrine is relaxed when its application may cause great and irreparable damage which cannot otherwise be prevented except by taking opportune appropriate court action.

Q: Is there a need to appeal the decision of a Cabinet member to the President before it may be brought to a court of justice? A: No, appeal to the President need not be resorted to, recourse to the courts could be had immediately. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the respondent is a department secretary who acts, as an alter ego of the President, bears the implied approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him.

(9) manifest abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, and capriciousness6 *Decisions of administrative agencies which are declared “final” by law are not exempt from judicial review when so warranted. Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside where they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. Questions of law  Administrative bodies may be allowed to resolve questions of law in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function as an incident of their primary power of regulation. However, their determination on this matter is only tentative at best and, whenever necessary, may be reviewed and reversed by the courts in proper cases.  The administrative decision may be appealed to the courts of justice independently of legislative permission or even against legislative prohibition. The reason is that the judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions on questions of law, whether made initially by lower courts and more so by an administrative body only7.

 2 Kinds of questions reviewable by the courts of justice (1) Questions of fact (2) Questions of law Questions of fact  Review of the administrative decision lies in the discretion of the legislature, which may or may not permit it as it sees fit. Denial of this remedy does not violate due process for the right to appeal is generally not deemed embraced in the right to a hearing.  Findings of fact are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction.  The findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected so long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. General Rule: Findings of fact by an administrative board or official, following a hearing, are binding upon the courts and will not be disturbed.

*When an administrative agency renders an opinionor issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a preexisting law and the administrative is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. *The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should be given more weight that the interpretation by the agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer.

Exceptions: (When review is justified) When there has been: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

denial of due process mistake or error of law lack of jurisdiction fraud collusion arbitrary action in the administrative proceeding (7) an irregular procedure in the determination of factual findings (8) palpable errors committed

15 | A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w R e v i e w e r

6

Exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion. 7 The decision of legal questions is an essentially judicial power that may not be withheld or withdrawn from the courts by legislation as the power is inherent in the judiciary.