DADULO vs.

CA
Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be
applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws
cannot be considered violative of any personal rights because no
vested right may attach to nor arise therefrom.

SAN MIGUEL VS. INCIONG

The Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential
Decree 851 is even more emphatic in declaring that earnings and other
remunerations which are not part of the basic salary shall not be
included in the computation of the 13th-month pay.

ASTURIAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM

Considering that the Bureau of Customs is the office charged with
implementing and enforcing the provisions of our Tariff and Customs
Code, the construction placed by it thereon should be given
controlling weight.
In applying the doctrine or principle of respect for
administrative or practical construction, the courts often refer
to several factors which may be regarded as bases of the principle,
as factors leading the courts to give the principle controlling
weight in particular instances, or as independent rules in
themselves. These factors are the respect due the governmental
agencies charged with administration, their competence, expertness,
experience, and informed judgment and the fact that they frequently
are the drafters of the law they interpret; that the agency is the
one on which the legislature must rely to advise it as to the
practical working out of the statute, and practical application of
the statute presents the agency with unique opportunity and
experiences for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or
improvements in the statute.

CARINO VS. CHR

The CHR has the power to investigate but not to adjudicate alleged
human right violation.

Investigate means to examine, inquire, explore.

Adjudicate to resolve, rule, settle, decide.

Megaworld Globus Asia vs. DSM Construction

Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only
respect, but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

NAPOCOR vs. LEASTO

Arbitral decision accord respect and finality by the Court
Exemption to the rule :
1. on the ground of promissory estoppels
2. And involving a legal issue and not a factual finding.

LUPANGCO vs. CA
Quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied to the action,
discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies
required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of
facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a
basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of
a judicial nature. To expound thereon, quasi-judicial adjudication
would mean a determination of rights, privileges and duties resulting
in a decision or order which applies to a specific situation . This
does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability issued
by the administrative body to implement its purely administrative
policies and functions like Resolution No. 105 which was adopted by
the respondent PRC as a measure to preserve the integrity of
licensure examinations.
JURISDICTION - the competence of an office or body to act on a
given matter or decide a certain question.
CHIN vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petition.
AZARCON vs. Sandiganbayan
The court has no jurisdiction over the person of Azarcon.

DUE PROCESS
SANTIAGO vs. Alikpala

First requirement of procedural due process, namely, the

existence of the court or tribunal clothed with judicial, or
quasi-judicial, power to hear and determine the matter before
it.
There is the express admission in the statement of facts that
respondents, as a court-martial, were not convened to try petitioner
but someone else, the action taken against petitioner being induced
solely by a desire to avoid the effects of prescription; it would
follow then that the absence of a competent court or tribunal is most
marked and undeniable. Such a denial of due process is therefore
fatal to its assumed authority to try petitioner.
NDC vs. Collector of Customs
Even in admin proceeding due process must be observed.
We find this action proper for it really appears that petitioner
Rocha was not given an opportunity to prove that the television set
complained of is not a cargo that needs to be manifested as required
by Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Under said section,
in order that an imported article or merchandise may be considered a
cargo that should be manifested it is first necessary that it be so
established for the reason that there are other effects that a vessel
may carry that are excluded from the requirement of the law, among
which are the personal effects of the members of the crew. The fact
that the set in question was claimed by the customs authorities not
to be within the exception does not automatically make the vessel
liable. It is still necessary that the vessel, its owner or operator,
be given a chance to show otherwise. This is precisely what
petitioner Rocha has requested in his letter. Not only was he denied
this chance, but respondent collector immediately imposed upon the
vessel the huge fine of P5,000.00. This is a denial of the
elementary rule of due process.
FABELLA vs. CA
In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to
include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive
notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a
respondents legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard
personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses
and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a
tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to
afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of
honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said
tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for
consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made
known to the parties affected.
In the present case, the various committees formed by DECS to hear
the administrative charges against private respondents did not
include a representative of the local or, in its absence, any
existing provincial or national teachers organization as required
by Section 9 of RA 4670. Accordingly, these committees were
deemed to have no competent jurisdiction. Thus, all
proceedings undertaken by them were necessarily void. They
could not provide any basis for the suspension or dismissal of
private respondents. The inclusion of a representative of a
teachers organization in these committees was indispensable to
ensure an impartial tribunal. It was this requirement that would
have given substance and meaning to the right to be heard.
Indeed, in any proceeding, the essence of procedural due
process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a
real opportunity to be heard.

LUPO vs. Administrative Action Board

The requirements of due process in administrative proceedings
and these are:
(1) the right to a hearing which includes, the right to present one's
case and submit evidence in support thereof;
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) the decision must have something to support itself,
(4) the evidence must be substantial, and substantial evidence means
such evidence as a reasonable mind must accept as adequate to support
a conclusion;
(5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected;
(6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his
own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) the board or body should in all controversial questions, render
its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can
know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision
rendered.

MADENILLA vs. CSC

No denial of due process.
"Due process of law implies the right of the person affected
thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment
upon the question of life, liberty, and property in its most
comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to
have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which
bears on the question of the light in the matter involved."
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The
presence of a party is not always the cornerstone of due process. In
the case at bar, any defect was cured by the filing of a motion
for reconsideration.

KANLAON Construction vs. NLRC

Gen. Rule : Only lawyers are allowed to appear before the
labor arbiter
Exemption:
Non-lawyer member of the organization
Non-lawyer representing himself as party to the case
Member of the legal aid duly recognized by IBP or DOJ

Engineer Estacio can appear however his appearance on behalf of

Kanlaon required written proof of authorization. Absent this
authority whatever statement and declaration made before the
arbiter is not binding to the petitioner.

First LEPANTO vs. CA

Clearly, Circular 1-91 effectively repealed or superseded Article 82
of E.O. 226 insofar as the manner and method of enforcing the right
to appeal from decisions of the BOI are concerned. Appeals from
decisions of the BOI, which by statute was previously allowed to be
filed directly with the Supreme Court, should now be brought to the
Court of Appeals.

Manuel vs. Villena

Technical rule of procedure are not strictly enforced and due process
of law in the strict judicial sense is not indispensable. It is
sufficient that substantive due process requirement of fairness and
reasonableness be observed.

RES JUDICATA

Judge Basilla vs. Becamon

Applying the principle of res judicata or bar by prior judgment, the

present administrative case becomes dismissible.
The Court held that applied the principle of res judicata or bar by
prior judgment. Under the said doctrine, a matter that has been
adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to
have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any
subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same
cause. It provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the
parties and their privies; and constitutes an absolute bar to
subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of
action. Res judicata is based on the ground that the party to be
affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has litigated the
same matter in the former action in a court of competent
jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again. This
principle frees the parties from undergoing all over again the rigors
of unnecessary suits and repetitious trials. At the same time, it
prevents the clogging of court dockets. Equally important, res
judicata stabilizes rights and promotes the rule of law.

NHA vs. Almeida

In fine, it should be remembered that quasi-judicial powers will

always be subject to true judicial powerthat which is held by the
courts. Quasi-judicial power is defined as that power of adjudication
of an administrative agency for the "formulation of a final order."
This function applies to the actions, discretion and similar acts of
public administrative officers or bodies who are required to
investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.
However, administrative agencies are not considered courts, in their
strict sense. The doctrine of separation of powers reposes the three
great powers into its three (3) branchesthe legislative, the
executive, and the judiciary. Each department is co-equal and
coordinate, and supreme in its own sphere. Accordingly, the executive
department may not, by its own fiat, impose the judgment of one of
its agencies, upon the judiciary. Indeed, under the expanded
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is empowered to "determine
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government."

Abelita vs. Doria

While the present case and the administrative case are based on the
same essential facts and circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata
will not apply.
There is no identity of causes of action in the cases. While
identity of causes of action is not required in the application of
res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment, it is
required that there must always be identity of parties in the
first and second cases.

For res judicata to apply, the following requisites must be

present:
(a) the former judgment or order must be final;
(b) it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that
is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or
stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case;
(c) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and
(d) there must be, between the first and second
actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause
of action; this requisite is satisfied if the two actions are
substantially between the same parties.
SEC vs. INTERPORT SERVICES
SEC retains jurisdiction to investigate
Section 53 of the Securities Regulations Code clearly provides that
criminal complaints for violations of rules and regulations enforced
or administered by the SEC shall be referred to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for preliminary investigation, while the SEC
nevertheless retains limited investigatory powers. Additionally, the
SEC may still impose the appropriate administrative sanctions under
Section 54 of the aforementioned law.

VICTORIA MILLING vs. SSS

There is a distinction between an administrative rule or regulation
and an administrative interpretation of a law whose enforcement is
entrusted to an administrative body. When an administrative agency
promulgates rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law with
the force and effect of a valid law, while when it renders an
opinion or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets a
pre-existing law. Rules and regulations when promulgated in
pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the
administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a
statute, and compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal
sanction provided in the law. A rule is binding on the courts so
long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its
scope is within the statutory authority granted by the legislature,
On the other hand, administrative interpretation of the law is at
best merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine
what the law means.

NFA VS. MASADA Security

The general rule is that construction of a statute by an

administrative agency charged with the task of interpreting or
applying the same is entitled to great weight and respect. The Court,
however, is not bound to apply said rule where such executive
interpretation, is clearly erroneous, or when there is no ambiguity
in the law interpreted, or when the language of the words used is
clear and plain, as in the case at bar. Besides, administrative
interpretations are at best advisory for it is the Court that finally
determines what the law means. Hence, the interpretation given by the
labor agencies in the instant case which went as far as supplementing
what is otherwise not stated in the law cannot bind this Court.

SGMC REALTY CORP. vs. Office of the President

Administrative rule or regulation, in order to be valid, must
not contradict but conform to the provisions of the enabling
law.
For it is axiomatic that administrative rules derive their validity
from the statute that they are intended to implement. Any rule which
is not consistent with statute itself is null and void.

Prospective or retroactive operation

CIR VS. AZUCENA
An administrative rule interpretive of a statute, and not
declarative of certain rights and corresponding obligations, is
given retroactive effect as of the date of the effectivity of
the statute.

SEC vs. GMA Network, Inc.

Rate-fixing is a legislative function which concededly has been

delegated to the SEC by R.A. No. 3531 and other pertinent laws. The
due process clause, however, permits the courts to determine
whether the regulation issued by the SEC is reasonable and
within the bounds of its rate-fixing authority and to strike it
down when it arbitrarily infringes on a persons right to
property.

VIGAN ELECTRIC CO. vs. Public Service Commission

Partakes of the nature of a quasi-judicial function and that

having been issued without previous notice and hearing said
order is clearly violative of the due process clause, and,
hence, null and void.

QJ notice and hearing requirement.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Bagonghasa vs. DAR

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from

resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction was initially lodged
with an administrative body of special competence. The doctrine of
primary jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself
authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
The Office of the DAR Secretary is in a better position to resolve
the particular issue of non-issuance of a notice of coverage.

NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. UNIWIDE SALES

Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts

will not determine a controversy where the issues for resolution
demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative
tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
In other words, if a case is such that its determination
requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an
administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before resort to the court is had even if
the matter may well be within the latter's proper jurisdiction.
 The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is
to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from
exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has
determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in
the proceeding before the court.

EXEMPTION to Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION
ON AUDIT

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction would ordinarily preclude us

from resolving the matter, which calls for a ruling to be first made
by the Board. It is the latter that is vested by law with exclusive
and original jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising under RA
8291, as well as other matters related thereto.
However, both the GSIS and respondents have extensively discussed the
merits of the case in their respective pleadings and did not confine
their arguments to the issue of jurisdiction. Respondents, in fact,
submit that we should resolve the main issue on the ground that it is
a purely legal question. Respondents further state that a remand of
the case to the Board would merely result in unnecessary delay and
needless expense for the parties.

GREGORIO VIGILAR SEC. of DPWH VS. ARNULFO AQUINO

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to

what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth
or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said question at best could be
resolved only tentatively by the administrative authorities. The
final decision on the matter rests not with them but with the courts
of justice.

Geraldine Gaw Guy vs. The Board of Commissioners of the Bureau

of immigration

Judicial intervention, however, should be granted in cases where the

claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the claim is correct in deportation
proceeding.

DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

NEW SUN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION vs. SB BRGY. SUN VALLEY

PARANAQUE

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a

cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that
courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their
functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized
areas of their respective competence. The rationale for this doctrine
is obvious. It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier
resolution of controversies. Comity and convenience also impel
courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of
administrative redress has been completed.
ARLIN OBIASCA VS. JEANE BASALLOTE
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that,
for reasons of law, comity and convenience, where the enabling
statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides
a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts will
not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies
have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given
an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the
administrative forum. In Orosa v. Roa, the Court ruled that if an
appeal or remedy obtains or is available within the administrative
machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to
the courts. While the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is subject to certain exceptions, these are not present in
this case.

EXEMPTION
REPUBLIC vs. CARLITO LACAP

Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based
on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not
inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the
doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that
will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make
the rule impractical and oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
has been rendered moot;
(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(k) when strong public interest is involved; and,
(l) in quo warranto proceedings. Exceptions (c) and (e) are
applicable to the present case.

KHRISTINE REA REGINO VS. PANGASINAN COLLEGES OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

Petitioner is not asking for the reversal of the policies of PCST.

Neither is she demanding it to allow her to take her final
examinations; she was already enrolled in another educational
institution. A reversal of the acts complained of would not
adequately redress her grievances; under the circumstances, the
consequences of respondents' acts could no longer be undone or
rectified.
Second, exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable when
there is competence on the part of the administrative body to act
upon the matter complained of. Administrative agencies are not
courts; they are neither part of the judicial system, nor are they
deemed judicial tribunals. Specifically, the CHED does not have the
power to award damages. Hence, petitioner could not have commenced
her case before the Commission.

Third, the exhaustion doctrine admits of exceptions, one of which

arises when the issue is purely legal and well within the
jurisdiction of the trial court. Petitioner's action for damages
inevitably calls for the application and the interpretation of the
Civil Code, a function that falls within the jurisdiction of the
courts.