ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW refers to branch of public law
which fixes the organization of government, determines the
competence of administrative bodies who execute the law, and
indicates to the individual the rights made available to him if
there is such violation.
Administrative Body Judicial Body
As to the nature of the function being performed
Wide array of activities Only one function judicial
As to how rules are applied
Wider Discretion in the Utmost observance of the
exercise of its powers Rules of Court
Administrative Law Constitutional Law
As to its nature
Carries into effect the plan of General plan of the
governmental organization governmental organization
As to what it stresses
Stresses on the duties of the Stresses on the rights of
government citizens
Exception to the PRINCIPLE of SEPARATION OF
POWERS:
Authority is given to administrative bodies to promulgate rules.
The nature of this promulgation is an exercise of a quasi-
legislative function.
In order to avoid unwarranted delegation, a law is enacted by
the legislative to provide for safeguards against
arbitrariness, capriciousness in the exercise of duties by
administrative authorities.
Such law must be complete - complete in its terms when the
powers are completely defined and the manner of the
exercise of such powers is provided.
TYPES of ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
1. Perform a business function of the government
(BIR, CSC)
2. Perform a business service which is not an
indispensable function of the government but is
deemed to assist the public (LRT, PNR, NFA, NHA)
3. Regulate the activities of individuals (SEC, NTC)
4. Exercise of police power (Bureau of Patents, PRC)
5. Adjudicate individual rights in the concept of social
justice (NLRC, POEA)
6. Grant privileges (GSIS, SSS, PAO)
7. Make the government a private party (COA)
CENTRAL BANK VS. CA, ABLAZA (April 22, 1975)
FACTS: A construction of an office was awarded to Ablaza by
Central Bank. No formal contract was executed but the work
commenced. However, after one month, Central Bank
terminated the construction. Trial court ruled in favor of
Ablaza.
National Government cannot dispense funds without the
requisite certification of availability. In this case, there was
none. Hence, Central Bank contends that there was no
perfected contract of sale due to the absence of such requisite.
HELD: The Central Bank is an entity separate and distinct
from the National Government. "National Government"
refers only to the central government, consisting of the
legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
government, as distinguished from local governments and
other governmental entities and is not synonymous, therefore,
with the terms The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines" or "Philippine Government", which are the
expressions broad enough to include not only the central
government but also the provincial and municipal governments,
chartered cities and other government-controlled corporations
or agencies, like the Central Bank.
Hence, there was a perfected contract of sale in which
Central Bank is liable.
Prepared by:
Government of the Republic of the Philippines
(GRP) refers to the corporate government entity
through which the functions of the government are
exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are
included those arms through which such political
authority is made effective whether they be provincial,
municipal or other form local government
National Government refers to the central
government consisting of the 3 branches or department
of the government
National Coconut Corporation is a corporate personality
and separate and distinct from the GRP
UP is a separate entity from the GRP
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
Where the law has given expertise to an agency on a
certain matter/area, whatever issues or controversies arising
therefrom should not be brought before the court but rather
before the administrative tribunal vested with such expertise.
BOC vs. DELA ROSA (May 31, 1991)
HELD: The Bureau of Immigration (BOI) has the exclusive
authority to hear and try cases involving alleged aliens, and
in the process, determine also their citizenship. The BOI is
not of equal rank as the RTC, hence its decisions may be
appealable to, and may be reviewed through a special civil
action for certiorari by the RTC. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction of BOI over deportation proceedings is not
without exception. Judicial intervention should be granted
only in cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is
correct.
QUALITRANS vs. ROYAL CLASS (Nov. 22, 1989)
FACTS: The grant of a certificate of public conveniences
(CPC) was the subject of a MFR before the NTC. Royal Class
filed a petition for declaratory relief before the NTC, which
action is ordinarily cognizable by the regular courts.
HELD: Applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the
NTC has the power to look into the controversy
notwithstanding the fact that it is a petition for declaratory
relief. What is important is not the nomenclature or the name
attached by the parties to their pleadings, but what the
petition alleges.
Illustrations of administrative agencies vested with
powers to determine technical issues by reason by
the express grant of law:
SOLID HOMES vs. PAYAWAL (August 29, 1989)
FACTS: Solid Homes failed to deliver the Certificate of Title
to Payawal after she paid the price for the house she bought.
The case was brought before the RTC. Solid Homes
contended that NHA has jurisdiction.
HELD: RTC has no jurisdiction. NHA has the exclusive
jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties under a
contract to sell a subdivision lot.
NHA exclusive jurisdiction as provided under PD 1344:
1) Unsound real estate business practices;
1) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed
by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
1) Cases involving specific performance of contractual
and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman.
NB: In 1981, NHAs jurisdiction over such matter was
transferred to Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.
But in 1986, it was eventually transferred to HLURB
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
CT TORRES, INC. vs. HIBIONADA (Nov. 9, 1990)
HELD: RTC has no jurisdiction. The complaint for specific
performance with damages filed with the RTC for failure to
deliver the Certificate of Title comes under the jurisdiction of
HLURB. HLURB is competent to award damages although this
is essentially a judicial power exercisable ordinarily only by the
courts. HLURB must interpret and apply contract and award
damages whenever appropriate.
HLC CONST vs. EMILY HOMES (Sept. 23, 2003)
HELD: It is the HLURB, not the trial court which has
jurisdiction over respondents complaint regarding the use of
substandard materials in the construction of their houses.
MARINA PROPERTIES vs. CA (Aug. 14, 1998)
FACTS: Carlos Construction was the principal contractor as to
the construction of a condo of Marina. He was allowed to buy
one unit as an incentive. Marina refused payment from Carlos
Construction as to the condo it bought. Carlos filed damages
before the RTC and an action for specific performance before
the HLURB.
HELD: There is no forum shopping since there are two
separate causes of action. Collection for a sum of money is
different from breach of a contract to sell and purchase.
ARRANZA vs. BF HOMES (June 19, 2000)
HELD: The HLURB and not the SEC has jurisdiction over a
complaint filed by subdivision homeowners against a
subdivision developer under receivership for specific
performance regarding basic homeowners' needs such as
water, security and open spaces.
The fact that respondent is under receivership does not
divest the HLURB of that jurisdiction since a corporation is not
dissolved even if it is under receivership.
HLURB has jurisdiction since the principal action is not
pecuniary in nature. The primary action is the enforcement of
the contract.
NB: This case was prior to RA 8799 (May 30, 2000), which
provides that RTC has jurisdiction over intra-corporate matters
involving the subdivision, homeowners on one hand and the
developer on the other.
Two kinds of powers of Administrative Bodies:
Rule-making power (Quasi-Legislative)
Power to adjudicate (Quasi-Judicial)
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER is the power of the administrative
agency or officer to investigate facts or ascertain the existence
of facts and to make a conclusion from such findings of facts.
1. Discretion of the
administrative tribunal in gathering and ascertaining
evidence.
2. Determining the facts of
the case on the basis of the evidence gathered.
3. Application of the law itself
on the facts so gathered.
The authority
given to an agency to gather and evaluate evidence is not
a quasi-judicial function.
Example: NBI since the third step is not present
CHR since it is limited to fact-finding
UP Board of Regents vs. CA (Aug. 31, 1999)
FACTS: UP awarded a doctorate degree to an Indian national.
It was later found that she has plagiarized her thesis thus the
Board of Regents withdrew the degree. She contended that the
Board was already estopped.
HELD: The degree can be withdrawn. The power to confer
includes the power to withdraw. There was due process
because she was given the right to be heard a formal hearing
is not required.
Prepared by:
BAR QUESTION: Can the CHR exercise Quasi-Judicial
function?
ANSWER: NO, since this power was not conferred to the
CHR. Authority to conduct investigation does not mean that
such tribunal also has quasi-judicial powers.
CARIO vs. CHR (Dec. 2, 1991)
FACTS: The teachers who participated in a mass action
were either dismissed or suspended. While the appeal is
pending before the Supreme Court, the teachers also filed a
case before the CHR, which issued a subpoena to DECS Sec.
Cario
HELD: CHR has no power to adjudicate. The function of
receiving evidence and ascertaining there from the facts of a
controversy is not a judicial function. Such was withheld by
the Constitution from CHR.
EASTERN TELECOM vs. INTL COMM (July 23, 2004)
FACTS: Respondent applied for and was given by the NTC a
Provisional Authority (PA) to install, operate and provide local
exchange service. Eastern Telecom was as also granted by
NTC a PA.
Respondent was then given a PA in Manila and Navotas,
2 areas already covered by petitioner. The issue being
contended is whether or not NTC has quasi-judicial authority
such that DOTC cannot intrude upon it.
HELD: The power of the NTC in granting or denying a
provisional authority to operate a local exchange carrier
service is a quasi-judicial function, a sphere in which the
DOTC cannot intrude upon. The DOTC circular, which directs
NTC to authorize only one franchised Local Exchange Carrier
(LEC) to provide LEC service within such areas, is only one of
the factors. Prior consultation was substantially complied.
NTCs authority refers to violations of the terms and
conditions of the certificate of public convenience. If there is
damage resulting from breach of delivery of a common
carrier, it is within the jurisdiction of the court and not within
the jurisdiction of NTC.
PCGG vs. JUDGE PEA (April 12, 1988)
FACTS: PCGG issued freeze order to two export apparel
companies who filed an injunction before RTC to restrain
PCGG. RTC issued a TRO to prevent PCGG from
implementing said order.
HELD: RTC cannot restrain PCGG. PCGG exercises quasi-
judicial power thus, it is deemed a co-equal body of RTC.
Co-equal bodies do not have power over each other. This is
also consistent with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
PADUA vs. RANADA (Oct. 14, 2002)
FACTS: The Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) issued a resolution
authorizing provisional toll rate adjustments at the Metro
Manila Skyway.
HELD: The TRB may grant and issue ex-parte to any
petitioner, without need of notice, publication or hearing,
provisional authority to collect the increase in rates.
An administrative agency may be empowered to approve
provisionally, when demanded by urgent public need, rates
of public utilities without a hearing. Provisional rates are by
their nature temporary and subject to adjustment in
conformity with the definitive rates approved after final
hearing.
The remedy of the petitioner is file a petition for review
of the adjusted toll rates.
Under PD 1112, the decision of TRB is appealable to the
Office of the President within 10 days from date of
promulgation of such order granting this provisional toll
rates.
FORUM SHOPPING
The test is the existence of the elements of litis
pendencia or res judicata
Res Judicata
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
It is not only identity of the parties but also identity of
the rights being asserted founded on the same facts
When is res judicata not applicable
1. Where the two cases do not place identical causes of
action and issues although the actions so filed are
based on the same essential facts
2. Where the agency does not possess a quasi-judicial
power
MONTEMAYOR vs. BUNDALIAN (July 1, 2003)
FACTS: Bundalian accused Montemayor of accumulating
unexplained wealth. A complaint was indorsed to the Philippine
Commission against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) for
investigation. A similar case was also filed before the
Ombudsman which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
HELD: The earlier dismissal of the case does not render the
administrative case before the PCAGC as moot and academic.
As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be
heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due
process are sufficiently met. Petitioner voluntarily submitted to
the jurisdiction of PCAGC by participating in the proceedings
before it. The decision of the Ombudsman does not operate as
res judicata in the PCAGC case. The doctrine of res
judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative
powers. As the PCAGCs investigation of petitioner was
administrative in nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds no
application in this case. The case before the Ombudsman is
criminal in nature while the case before PCAGC is
administrative in nature.
NBI does not have power to adjudicate
PAO does not have power to adjudicate
Ombudsman has quasi-judicial function since it can
adjudicate with finality the issue of the administrative case
but not the criminal case
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER
Requirements for the administrative bodies
promulgation of rules and regulations to be valid:
1. The rules must be germane to the objects
and purposes of the law;
2. The rules and regulations must conform to
the general standards that the law has prescribed; and
3. The rules must relate solely to carrying out
in effect the general provisions of law
3 Kinds of laws which may be promulgated by the
administrative tribunal in the exercise of their quasi-
legislative power:
1. Rules and regulations in order to fill in the details of
the law, which must not be contrary to the law itself.
2. Rules in order to interpret the law
3. Rules promulgated in order to determine a state of
facts upon which the enforcement of a law is made to
depend
Requisites for valid delegation
Completeness test the law is complete in itself
Sufficient Standard test the must fix a standard, the
limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable, to which the delegate must conform in
the performance of his functions
PBCOM vs. CIR (Jan. 28, 199)
FACTS: BIR changed the prescriptive period from 2 years to
10 years in the matter of filing a claim for refund on excess of
income tax payment.
HELD: The rule issued by the BIR Commissioner violates the
law. It arrogates unto itself the power to legislate. The rule
must be germane to the object and purposes of the law and
Prepared by:
must at all times be in conformity and within the scope and
powers as provided by the statute to the administrative
agency.
In this case, there can be no estoppel on the part of the
State where the administrative agency acting on behalf of
the State has made an error.
FEDERACION vs. QUISUMBING (Jan. 26, 1988)
FACTS: Education Secretary Quisimbing issued an order
phasing out Spanish subject as part of the curriculum and
imposing the Arabic subject in an optional basis. The
Federacion contended that the order is arbitrary and
violative of due process.
HELD: The issuance of the order is a valid exercise of a
quasi-legislative power. It was made applicable to all
similarly situated. There was no violation of due process.
Bar Question:
OPLE vs. TORRES (July 23, 1998)
FACTS: Administrative Order 308 entitled "Adoption of a
National Computerized Identification Reference System" was
issued by President Ramos.
HELD: A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not
appropriate to be covered by an administrative order. An
administrative order is an ordinance issued by the
President which relates to specific aspects in the
administrative operation of government. It must be in
harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.
The SC rejects the argument that A.O. No. 308
implements the legislative policy of the Administrative Code
of 1987. The Code is a general law and incorporates in a
unified document the major structural, functional and
procedural principles of governance. The establishment of a
national computerized identification reference system
requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state
policies, the primacy of national security, the extent of
privacy against dossier-gathering by the government, and
choices of policies. It deals with a subject that should be
covered by a law.
This calls for the adoption, implementation of national
state policies which should be thoroughly discussed in the
legislature. So this is unconstitutional. There must be a law
before the same is adopted.
Bar Question:
PHIL CONSUMERS vs. SEC of EDUC (Aug. 31, 1987)
FACTS: Petitioner contended that DECS has no power to
increase school fees and questioned that such order
constitutes a denial of substantive and procedural due
process.
HELD: The order was valid exercise of quasi-legislative
power because it applies to all thus prior hearing not needed.
DECS is vested with the power to regulate the educational
system in the country. In the absence of a statute stating
otherwise, this power included the power to prescribe school
fees.
Characteristic of Quasi-Legislative Power
Applies to all persons similarly situated
Characteristic of Quasi-Judicial Power
Applies to a particular person or agency and thus,
the requirements of due process must always be
observed in accordance with the Ang Tibay
doctrine
REPUBLIC vs. MIGRIO (Aug. 30, 1990)
FACTS: PCGG chair Jovito Salonga created an Anti-Graft
Board to investigate the unexplained wealth of AFP
personnel. He ordered the investigation of Lt. Col. Tecson
who argued that PCGG has no jurisdiction over him since
there was no allegation of his association with Marcos.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
HELD: PCGG has no jurisdiction since its authority is only
limited to investigating the alleged ill-gotten wealth involving
the Marcoses and their cronies.
Nothing in this case would indicate that Tecson is a crony
of the Marcoses. There was no such allegation that he had
connection with the Marcoses.
LUPANGCO vs. CA (April 29, 1988)
FACTS: PRC ordered that candidates for the CPA board exams
are not allowed to participate in any review classes or receive
materials within 3 days prior to the examination day.
HELD: The order of PRC violated the rights of the students as
wells as the right to academic freedom of the school. The
issuance of a quasi-legislative rule must be reasonable.
In the exercise of its quasi-legislative power, the order
executed by the administrative tribunal must not be arbitrary or
oppressive. It must be reasonable, apart from the fact that it
must always be consistent with what the law mandates.
DADOLE vs. COA (Dec. 3, 2002)
FACTS: Monthly allowances of RTC and MTC judges of
Mandaue City were increased. Mandaue City Auditor
disallowed such increase since DBM issued a circular wherein
monthly allowances of judges should not exceed P 1,000 in
cities and provinces and P 700 in municipalities.
HELD: Section 458 of RA 7160 allows the grant of additional
allowances to judges when the finances of the city government
allow. The said provision does not authorize setting a
maximum limit to the additional allowances granted to judges.
Said circular is already amending the law, which is RA
7160. DBM has no authority to issue this order.
Bar Question: (similar except it was medical schools)
SANZ vs. ABAD SANTOS
FACTS: The board of examiners for nursing issued an order
requiring a periodic inspection of nursing schools and prohibits
the graduates of those schools which do not comply with the
minimum standards to take the board exams.
HELD: This is an exercise of a quasi-legislative power. Such
order applies to all enterprises similarly situated. This is a
reasonable exercise. There was no violation of due process.
CONTE vs. CA (Nov. 4, 1996)
FACTS: SSS retirees availed of RA 660 and SSS Resolution
No. 56. The SSS board promulgated said resolution providing
for a supplementary retirement pension plan for a retiring
employee. COA disallowed said claims, saying it violates RA
4968 (Teves Retirement Law) which bars the creation of
insurance or retirement plan other than the GSIS government
law.
HELD: Resolution 56 contravenes the Teves Retirement Law.
This is an act arrogating unto itself the power belonging solely
to Congress. SSS had no authority to maintain and implement
such retirement plan, particularly in the face statutory
prohibition.
ROMULO vs. HDMF (June 19, 2000)
FACTS: A plan which provides for both provident/retirement
and housing benefits is exempted from the PAG-IBIG Fund
Coverage. In 1995, petitioner law firm was exempted.
Thereafter, HDMF issued a resolution providing that for a
company to be entitled to a waiver or suspension of Fund
Coverage, it must have a plan providing for both
retirement/provident and housing benefits superior to those
provided under the PAG-IBIG Fund. Waiver filed by petitioner
was disapproved by HDMF.
HELD: The HDMF Board Resolution is not valid. Said
resolution effectively amended Section 19 of PD 1752 which
merely requires as a pre-condition for exemption from
coverage the existence of either a superior
provident/retirement plan or a superior housing plan, and not
the concurrence of both plans. Administrative issuances must
not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain
Prepared by:
consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only
Congress can repeal or amend the law.
CIR vs. CA, CTA, FORTUNE TOBACCO (Aug. 29, 1996)
FACTS: Fortune Tobacco changed the names to Hope
Luxury and Premium More thereby removing the said brands
from the foreign brand category. BIR head Chato issued a
regulation re-classifying the brand of cigarette belonging to
the Fortune Tobacco Champion, More, Hope from local
to foreign.
HELD: The order issued by the BIR violated due process.
The order was issued in the guise of quasi-legislative power
but actually it was an exercise of quasi-judicial power
because the order was made applicable only to Fortune
Tobacco.
This issuance should have been in the exercise of a
quasi-judicial function thus the need for public hearings. But
there were no public hearings conducted in this case.
FISCAL AUTONOMY
Entails freedom from outside control and
limitations, other than those provided by law. It is
the freedom to allocate and utilize funds granted by
law, in accordance with law, and pursuant to the
wisdom and dispatch its needs may require from
time to time.
Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG)
Agencies of government that had been given
authority under the Constitution or by law to have
full freedom in the matter of the allocation and
utilization of their sources, including the authority to
make a reclassification or abrogating and creation of
positions
But this must be consistent or within the
parameters of the guidelines imposed under the
Unified Position Classification and Compensation
System (UCCS) as administered by DBM
Budgets of these agencies cannot be reduced
Who are the members of CFAG
COMELEC
COA
CSC
The Judiciary
Office of the Ombudsman
BENGZON vs. DRILON (April 15, 1992)
FACTS: The Supreme Court granted readjustment of
monthly pensions of 4 Justices. Congress included in the
General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1992 certain
appropriations for the Judiciary for the payment of the
adjusted pension rates of the retired justices. Such was
vetoed by the President.
HELD: The attempt to use the veto power to set aside a
resolution of the Supreme Court and to deprive the retirees
of benefits given them by RA 1797 trenche upon the
constitutional grant of fiscal autonomy to the Judiciary.
CHR Employees Assoc vs. CHR (Nov. 25, 2004)
FACTS: CHR is a member of CFAG. CHR adopted a
reclassification scheme wherein it collapsed vacant positions
to provide additional funds. DBM denied the request.
HELD: Article IX of the Constitution states in no uncertain
terms that only the CSC, COMELEC, and the COA shall be
tagged as Constitutional Commissions with the appurtenant
right to fiscal autonomy. CHR is not among the class of
Constitutional Commissions.
The fact that CHR is a member of CFAG does not ipso
facto clothe it with fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy is a
constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable by membership.
CSC vs. DBM (July 22, 2005)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
FACTS: In the General Appropriations Act of 2002, the DBM
was supposed to release P 285 M, the budget allotted by the
law to the CSC for that year. There was still a balance of P
5.8M which DBM refused to release to CSC since there was
revenue shortfall.
HELD: Revenue shortfall is not a valid justification for the
non- release of the budget allotted to that agency. Funds for
agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy should be automatically and
regularly released. Agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy should
be given priority.
Exception to the rule when there can be non-full release
of funds is when the total revenues cannot cover the total
budget allocation of such agencies enjoying fiscal
autonomy. (But this is quite an impossible situation )
POWER TO SUBPOENA
Basic principle is that administrative agencies do not
have the inherent power to require the attendance
of witnesses, unlike the court.
There must be a law granting this power to subpoena
Executive Order 292, Book 7, Chapter 3, Section 13 grants
such power for agencies performing quasi-judicial
functions
Where the law gives authority to receive evidence, this
necessarily includes the authority to summon witnesses to
testify before the agency. The power to issue subpoena
necessarily follows from the authority given under the law
to gather evidence or take in testimony, otherwise the
power would be a futile exercise.
Where there is authority under the law for the receipt of
evidence, this includes the authority to require the
production of records and other relevant documents.
In the case of administrative tribunal, there must be an
express conferment of this power to punish for contempt
because the power to punish for contempt is inherently
judicial.
The penalty must also be stated.
If the law does not provide for the imposition of a penalty
for disobeying the orders, the remedy is to apply before
the court to punish such act as contempt of court
Administrative agencies cannot issue warrants of arrest
But immigration authorities can issue warrant of arrest
pursuant to a final order of deportation
Administrative subpoena vs. Judicial Subpoena
Administrative subpoena is issued if the purpose is to
gather or discover evidence on the basis of which there
will be an institution of the appropriate case before the
appropriate body
Judicial subpoena is issued if the purpose is to prove in
evidence the charge
POWER TO INTERPRET THE LAW
Administrative agencies are given the competence to
interpret the law they are asked to implement. Otherwise,
the administrative agency will be rendered powerless
However, such interpretation is not binding upon the court.
The final arbiter of what the law is is not the administrative
tribunal but the court. The interpretation made by the
administrative agency is merely persuasive
Ministerial power vs. Discretionary power
Ministerial power is when the administrative tribunal is
required to perform in a certain manner as required by
law. His duty is imperative and he is not authorized in fact
to exercise judgment. This can be compelled by
mandamus.
Discretionary power is when the administrative agency
is given the authority to do any act, but not required to
perform such act because the doing of such act depends
on his discretion. This cannot be compelled by mandamus.
PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT
Prepared by:
Rules and regulations cannot take effect without
publication
Article 2 - New Civil Code of the Philippines
Laws shall take effect after 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.
TAADA vs. TUVERA (April 24, 1985)
HELD: The publication of presidential issuances "of a public
nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due
process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be
bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically
informed of its contents. But if the rule is simply for the
internal guidance of public officers and employees not of
general application, then even if such rule is not published,
these are binding on the public officers and employees.
Purpose of Publication
To inform the public of the contents of the rules and
regulations so issued before their substantive rights are
affected.
Publication requirement applies only where the issuance
is of general application and thus, intended for the
public at large
An administrative circular issued by POEA, in the
absence of such compliance with the requirement,
cannot be given effectivity.
When publication not required
1. Interpretative rules and regulations
2. Where the rules and regulations regulate only the
staff or the personnel of the administrative office
3. Rules and regulations which are in the nature of
letters of instructions (LOI), which means they are
merely guidelines to be followed by the personnel
GSIS vs. COA (Jan. 22, 1999)
FACTS: Executive Order 79 providing for reversion of
inactive status of a reserve officer was enacted on December
2, 1986. Brig. Asuncion died on November 16, 1987. EO 79
was implemented by the Board of Trustees of GSIS on
December 11, 1987. GSIS approved his compulsory
insurance coverage but was disallowed by COA.
HELD: EO 79 was effective at the time of death of Brig.
Asuncion. Such EO was published on December 22, 1986
and thus, effective 15 days thereafter, which is January 7,
1987. Brig. Asuncion was already compulsorily covered as a
member of GSIS at the time of his death.
PITC vs. COA (June 25, 1999)
FACTS: The PITC Board approved a car plan program for its
qualified officers. On July 1, 1989, RA 6758 took effect
which provided that other additional compensation being
received by incumbents as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into
the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.
To implement RA 6758, DBM issued DBM-CCC No. 10. The
payment for expenses for such car plan was disallowed by
COA.
HELD: DBM-CCC No. 10 has no force and effect due to the
absence of publication. Subsequent publication thereof
would not cure the defect. Publication is required as a
condition precedent to the effectivity of a law.
DE JESUS vs. COA (Aug. 12, 1989)
FACTS: DBM issued DBM-CCC No. 10 discontinuing all
allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
HELD: Publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines is required since DBM-CCC
No. 10 is in the nature of an administrative circular the purpose
of which is to enforce or implement an existing law.
Registration of Rules
Where there is authority given to an administrative tribunal
to impose sanctions as provided by law, under EO 292,
there must be a filing and registration of these rules with
the National Administrative Register or with the UP Law
Center
Q: What is the effect if such rules issued which impose
sanctions was not filed and registered with the National
Administrative Register?
A: Such rules imposing penalty cannot be executed in the
absence of this registration
REPUBLIC vs. EXPRESS TELECOM (Jan. 15, 2002)
FACTS: In 1993, there were no more available frequencies
and thus, Bayantels application to operate a Cellular Mobile
Telephone System was archived. In 2000, NTC revived
Bayantels application and granted provisional authority to
operate applying its 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Extelcom contends that NTC should have applied its Revised
Rules filed the National Administrative Register on February
1993.
HELD: The 1993 Rules have not yet been published, and thus,
the 1978 Rules were applied by NTC. The 1993 Revised Rules
have not taken effect at the time of the grant of the provisional
authority. There is nothing in the Administrative Code of 1987
which implies that the filing of the rules with the UP Law Center
is the operative act that gives the rules force and effect.
DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Procedural Due Process vs. Substantial Due Process
Procedural Due Process pertains to the method,
the manner by which the law is enforced or implemented
Substantive Due Process refers to the law itself
and not merely to the procedures to how the law is
implemented. This means that the law itself must be fair,
reasonable and just.
FABELLA vs. CA (Nov. 28, 1997)
FACTS: In 1990, DECS Sec. Cario issued to a return-to-work
order to public school teacher who participated in strikes. The
proceedings were questioned on the ground that there was
non-compliance under the Magna Carta Act RA 4673. The
Magna Carta Act provides that DECS has the sole original
jurisdiction over administrative cases filed against public school
teachers. The trial court found that the committee tasked to
investigate the charges filed against petitioners was illegally
constituted.
HELD: Private respondents were denied due process of law.
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.
Requirements of due process in administrative
proceedings:
1. There must be an impartial tribunal;
Prepared by:
2. Due notice and hearing must be complied with
(opportunity to be heard);
3. Procedure must be consistent with fair play
4. There must be opportunity for the court to
determine whether or not the applicable rules on
evidence were observed by the administrative
tribunal.
1. The need to have an impartial tribunal
If a tribunal issues a resolution on the basis of the
findings after the conduct of an ocular inspection,
there is no compliance with the first requirement
because an ocular inspection is not main trial.
Magna Carta Law
Under Section 9 of the Magna Carta Law, there
must be an investigating committee composed of the
Division School Superintendent as the chair, and the
supervisor of the division as member together with a
representative of the teachers association, whether
local, provincial or national.
If there is no representative from the public school
teachers association, proceedings are nullified.
Q: What if the complainant is the Division School
Superintendent?
A: Members composing the committee should be left to the
Secretary of Education
Exception to the Magna Carta Law: estoppel by laches
EMIN vs. DE LEON (Feb. 27, 2002)
FACTS: In 1991, certificates of eligibility of teachers were
doubtful of authenticity as signatures were clearly forged.
Petitioner was the one who gave the certificates for a fee.
He was found guilty of grave misconduct by the CSC.
HELD: Magna Carta Law is applicable to this case.
However, at this late hour, the proceedings conducted by the
CSC can no longer be nullified. Under the principle of
estoppel by laches, petitioner is now barred from impugning
the CSCs jurisdiction over his case since he participated
actively in the proceedings. Due process was nevertheless
observed in this case.
ALCALA vs. VILLAR (November 18, 2003)
FACTS: Ombudsman issued a resolution finding
respondent, who is a public school teacher, guilty of
dishonesty and dismissing him from service.
HELD: Respondent was afforded due process. Respondent
in this case should be barred under the principle of estoppel
by laches.
CRUZ, PAITIM vs. CSC (Nov. 27, 2001)
FACTS: Paitim took the CSC exam in behalf of Cruz. They
were found guilty of dishonesty. They argued that they were
deprived of their right to due process because the CSC was
the complainant, the Prosecutor and the Judge, all at the
same time.
HELD: They were not denied due process. The fact that
the complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not mean that
it could not be an impartial judge. As an administrative
body, its decision was based on substantial findings. So long
as there is impartiality in the conduct of proceedings, even if
the matter of gathering evidence and becoming the
complainant is given to the same division, it does not follow
that there is already a violation of due process.
Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind will deem adequate to support a
conclusion.
Complaint may be initiated by individual (aggrieved
party) or the agency.
CSC may initiate the complaint
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
Formal complaint, subscribed and sworn under
oath, can become the basis of a formal investigation
Unverified complaint is a complaint that is not
subscribed and sworn under oath. It cannot be the basis
of a formal investigation but it may be the basis of the
conduct of a fact finding investigation so as to gather
evidence to support the unverified complaint.
Exception: If the complaint is initiated by the
authority itself, there is no need for the compliance with
the requirement of verification.
2. The need to be notified and the opportunity to be
heard
The right to a hearing not only includes the right to
present evidence, but also a reasonable opportunity to
know the claims of the opposing party
REPUBLIC vs. EXPRESS TELECOM (Jan. 15, 2002)
HELD: There was no violation of due process because the
opposing party will be given all the opportunity to oppose the
application on the merits in the course of the proceedings and
not simply on the basis of such a motion for revival. Notice to
the opposing party as to the motion of revival is not required
since the filing of the motion for the revival is not already a
decision on the merits
PNCC vs. REPUBLIC (Aug. 20, 1990)
HELD: The maintenance fees to be collected from the
motorists using the expressway do not require a public hearing
before the Toll Regulatory Board pursuant to PD 1112. A
public hearing is mandatory only in cases of petitions for
increases in toll rates.
Q: Would a public hearing be required for a petition for
decrease in toll rates is applied?
A: There is no public hearing required since the public will not
be adversely affected.
3. The procedure must be consistent with
essentials of fair play
4. The proceedings shall be conducted in such manner
to give opportunity to the court whether the
applicable rule of law and procedure was in fact
observed
CIR vs. CA, CTA, FORTUNE (Aug. 29, 1996)
HELD: The BIR, in issuing the circular, legislated under its
quasi-legislative authority and applying it only to a specified
type or form. Due observance of the requirements of notice,
hearing and publication should not have been ignored.
ZAMBALES CHROMITE vs. CA (Nov. 7, 1979)
FACTS: Gozon, Director of Mines, dismissed the case filed by
the petitioners. While the appeal was pending, Gozon was
appointed Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. He
dismissed the appeal.
HELD: Gozon acted with grave abuse of discretion in
reviewing his decision. The reviewing officer must perforce be
other than the officer whose decision is under review.
SINGSON vs. NLRC, PAL (June 19, 1997)
FACTS: Singson filed a complaint against PAL for illegal
dismissal. Labor Arbiter Aquino declared the dismissal as
illegal. The 2nd Division of NLRC, with Aquino as presiding
commissioner, reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
HELD: The officer who reviews a case on appeal should not
be the same person whose decision is subject of review.
Resolution of NLRC is void for the Division that handed it down
was not composed of 3 impartial commissioners.
GAOIRAN vs. ALCALA (Nov. 26, 2004)
Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
FACTS: Gaoiran contended that the letter-complaint was
not under oath and that he was not informed of the
complaint before, during and after the preliminary fact-
finding investigation.
HELD: While the letter-complaint was not concededly
verified, appended thereto were the verified criminal
complaints that he filed against the petitioner, as well as the
sworn statements of his witnesses. These documents could
very well be considered as constituting the complaint against
the petitioner. The letter-complaint did not, by itself,
commence the administrative proceedings but merely
triggered a fact-finding investigation by the CHED.
CSC vs. LUCAS (Jan. 21, 1999)
FACTS: The Board of Personnel Inquiry found Lucas guilty
of simple misconduct. However, CSC found him guilty of
grave misconduct. Lucas came to know of the modification
of the charge when he received the resolution dismissing him
from service.
HELD: A basic requirement of due process is that a person
must be duly informed of the charges against him and that a
person can not be convicted of a crime with which he was
not charged. A person can only be sanctioned of the charge
filed. He cannot be penalized of a charge for which he was
not duly informed.
Q: Is a formal hearing absolutely necessary in administrative
cases?
A: No, it is not absolutely necessary. Administrative
authorities are given a wide latitude of discretion so long as
there is observance of the fundamental procedural and
substantial due process.
In administrative proceedings, parties may agree to
waiver of proceedings
If allowed by law, the administrative tribunal may
proceed not on the basis of a formal hearing but on the
basis of position papers
the LINCOLN GERALD, INC. vs. NLRC (July 23, 1990)
HELD: There was no denial of due process; notices are sent
to counsel of record, not to the client. Notice to the counsel
is notice to the client. Petitioners former counsel did notf
withdraw its appearance. Negligence of its counsel does not
constitute a denial of due process.
NAPOCOR vs. NLRC (May 29, 1997)
FACTS: The Solicitor General was NAPOCORs lawyer.
NLRCs decision was sent to the special attorney designated
by the Office of the Solicitor General.
HELD: The lawyer designated as "special attorney-OSG" is a
mere representative of the OSG. The OSG continues to be
the principal counsel for the NAPOCOR, and as such, the
Solicitor General is the party entitled to be furnished copies
of orders, notices and decisions. Since service of said
decision was never made on the OSG, the period to appeal
the decision to the NLRC did not commence to run.
PHIL PORTS vs. SARGASSO (July 30, 2004)
FACTS: Petitioner averred that the decision of the trial court
was served on its Legal Services Department and not on the
Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) as its
lead counsel. The petitioner argued that since the OGCC was
not served with a copy of the trial courts decision, the period
to perfect its appeal therefrom never commenced.
HELD: Petitioner was represented in the trial court by the
OGCC in collaboration with its Legal Services Department.
An SPA was executed appointing the OGCC and its Legal
Services Department, through any of their lawyers, as its
counsel. Hence, the copies of the orders and decision of the
trial court may be served on the petitioner, either through its
Legal Services Department or through the OGCC.
Nevertheless, the Court gave due course to the said petition
as it decided to relax the strict application of the rules of
procedure in the exercise of its legal jurisdiction.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
ALBA vs. NITORREDA (March 13, 1996)
FACTS: There was an allegation that Asst. Regional Director
Alba was partial to an owner of a school, of which a complaint
was filed against. He was suspended for 30 days but
contended that he was denied due process because his right to
appeal was denied.
HELD: Under the OMB Act, where the penalty imposed is
suspension not exceeding 30 days or a fine not to exceed 1
month salary, the decision shall become final and executory.
There is no violation of due process because the law has made
such imposition of penalty as final and executory. Right to
appeal is granted by law and thus, may be withdrawn by the
law itself.
Q: Is the right to counsel part of due process during the
administrative investigation?
A: No, the right to due process does not include the right to
be assisted by counsel.
In administrative proceedings, what is being
determined is not the criminal liability of the respondent,
but rather so as to warrant an administrative or
disciplinary measure
The matter of being assisted by counsel is an option
given to the respondent and in no way is the
administrative tribunal obliged to provide the respondent a
counsel.
LUMIQUED vs. EXEVEA (Nov. 18, 1997)
FACTS: DAR Regional Director Lumiqued was found guilty of
Malversation. On his 2nd MFR, he argued that he was denied
due process since he was not represented by counsel during
the hearing.
HELD: There was no denial of due process. The due process
clause does not encompass the right to be assisted by counsel
during an administrative investigation.
Q: Is jurisdiction lost when after the filing of the case the
respondent is no longer in public service?
A: Jurisdiction is acquired by the tribunal by the filing of such
complaint before it. If subsequent to the filing, the
respondent public officer ceases to be connected to the
public office during the pendency of the case, this does not
mean the automatic dismissal of the administrative case.
Cardinal primary rights in administrative proceedings:
ANG TIBAY vs. CIR (1940)
There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected
even in proceedings of this character:
(1) The right to a hearing
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(3) There must be something to support its decision
(4) Such evidence must be substantial
(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.
(6) The tribunal must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy
(7) The tribunal must 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.
There must be notice and opportunity to be heard
The decision must be based upon substantial evidence
A decision which is based on evidence not disclosed
to the parties is not a valid decision
The matter of gathering, evaluating and investigating
may be delegated to a subordinate officer as long as the
disciplining authority does not simply rely on this reports
but he must independently assess all the evidences
gathered
Parties must know the factual findings of the
administrative tribunal and the reasons therefore. There
Prepared by:
must be a statement of the case, of the findings and
conclusions of the administrative tribunals. In the
absence thereof, there is a violation of due process.
Exceptions to the requirement of due notice &
hearing:
1. The removal of an acting officer
2. The issuance of a preventive suspension
3. By provision of law
(ex. under taxation levying of a property of a
delinquent taxpayer
4. Cancellation of a passport
5. The law itself authorizes the administrative
tribunal to grant provisional increase of rates
PADUA vs. RANADA (Oct. 14, 2002)
HELD: Even if the directors who signed the resolution were
not present during the public hearing, there was no violation
of due process. The conduct of public hearings may be
delegated to subordinate officers.
MALINAO vs. REYES (March 29, 1996)
FACTS: The administrative investigation against the
municipal mayor was delegated to a committee by the
Sanggunian. The report was signed only by the chairman of
the committee. The Sanggunian voted to suspend the
municipal mayor.
HELD: Suspension was not valid. There was no decision
signed by the members of the Sanggunian. Section 66 of
the LGC requires that the decision be made in writing,
stating clearly and distinctly the factual findings and the
reasons for such conclusion reached.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
This right is available in proceedings not only in civil
but likewise in administrative and criminal proceedings
This right is only applicable to natural persons
Thus, an administrative agency may require an
organization to furnish it with records of books although
these may incriminate such organization
DOCTRINE OF
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
This doctrine provides that before a party may be
allowed to seek judicial recourse, there must be
exhaustion of administrative remedies
This doctrine only applies if the law itself provides
for rules and guidelines for the exhaustion of
administrative remedies
If the law itself only gives the administrative body
to exercise discretion, this does not impose upon the
party to exhaust all administrative remedies
This doctrine must be timely invoked by the party
Reasons for the application for this doctrine:
1. For the administrative body to be given the
chance to correct or rectify whatever error or errors
having committed by it in the discharge of its functions.
2. To help in declogging the court dockets
3. The law itself gives competence or
expertise to Administrative tribunals to carry out the
mandate to them by law.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (EAR)
vs. Primary Jurisdiction (PJ)
Both pertain to the relationships between the Courts
and Administrative Tribunals
Both principles do not apply where the issue
involved is a pure question of law
As to where originally cognizable
EAR: pertains to cases originally
cognizable by the administrative tribunal in the first
instance alone
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
PJ: applies to cases originally
cognizable by the courts but because of the power
given by law to administrative bodies to discover facts
they so specialize, courts refuse to take cognizance of
the case
As to jurisdiction
EAR: the Administrative Tribunal
has exclusive original jurisdiction
PJ: the courts and the
administrative tribunal has concurrent jurisdiction
As to effect
EAR: prevents judicial interference
for such cannot be had until all administrative
remedies have been exhausted
PJ: suspension of the judicial
proceedings, if such is instituted, to pave the way for
administrative proceeding
Application of Doctrine of EAR
Remedy of aggrieved party is to file a motion for
reconsideration if there is a requirement that such must be
filed first. Otherwise, no need to file the same
If MFR is still adverse to the party, appeal shall be
taken to the superior officer, not before the courts
If the decision of the superior officer, the Dept. Sec.
for example, it is the CSC which has appellate jurisdiction
over administrative disciplinary cases (CSC vs. LUCAS)
If this doctrine is not followed and the case is directly
filed before the courts, the effect would be the dismissal of
the case on the ground of prematurity
It is not only important that a case is initiated in the
right tribunal but it must be pursued to its finality having in
mind the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies
DELTAVENTURES vs. CABATO (March 9, 2000)
FACTS: Deltaventures filed a complaint for injunction and
damages with the RTC asserting owernship over a property
order to be levied by NLRC with regard to an illegal dismissal
case.
HELD: The action was really in the nature of a labor case
incident which should warrant the exhaustion of administrative
remedies. The body which has the authority to take
cognizance of the same issue is the NLRC because this is an
incident arising from the labor case and applying the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction - where the law has made a remedy, the
aggrieved individual must avail of such remedy.
The RTC is a co-equal body of NLRC and therefore it has
no jurisdiction to issue a restraining order to prevent the NLRC
from executing its decision.
LLARENA vs. LACSON (May 30, 1960)
FACTS: Llarena was dismissed since he was found to be the
culprit as to a missing piano. Llarena contested the decision.
The law at that time provided that the action must be taken
before the Office of the President but Llarena did not comply
with this requirement and his defense was that he was
uneducated.
HELD: Lack of education is not a defense. There must still be
compliance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
Under the Mining Law, appeal must be taken to the
Secretary of DENR since it has the power of supervision
and control over the bureaus, in this case the Geological
Bureau, under it. If still not satisfied, the aggrieved may
appeal to the Office of the President within a period of 5
days.
But if no such rule is provided, the Doctrine of
Qualified Political Agency is applied.
DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY
(ALTER EGO PRINCIPLE)
Prepared by:
Whatever decision the head of the Department
promulgates is the decision also of the President unless
the president himself revokes he same.
If no such provision of law allowing an appeal from
the department secretary to the President, applying this
principle, then there is no need to appeal to the Office of
the President. Thus an action may be filed to the Court
contesting the decision of the Department Secretary.
AURILLO vs. RABI (Nov. 26, 2000)
FACTS: Public Prosecutor recommended that the case
against Rabi be dismissed for lack of probable cause.
Regional State Prosecutor Aurillo assumed jurisdiction over
the case. Rabi filed with the RTC a petition for prohibiton
contending that a regional state prosecutor was vested only
with administrative supervision over the city prosecutor and
had no power to motu proprio review, revise, or modify the
resolution of the city prosecutor on the latters conduct of a
preliminary or inquest investigation of a criminal complaint
filed directly therewith. Aurillo alleged that the petition was
premature as Rabi failed to exhaust all administrative
remedies from the Secretary of Justice before filing the
petition.
HELD: One exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is when the disputed act is
performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
Aurillo acted without authority and with grave abuse of
discretion; hence, his actuations were a nullity.
CORSIGA vs. DEFENSOR (Oct. 28, 2002)
FACTS: Ortizo was aggrieved by his reassignment in the
National Irrigation Administration. He filed a complaint for
prohibition before the RTC.
HELD: CSC has jurisdiction over all employees of
government, including GOCCs with original charters. NIA is
a GOCC with original charter. The trial court does not have
jurisdiction over personnel actions. Ortizo should have
complained first to the NIA Administrator, then, appealed to
CSC.
Cases involving personnel action, and this involves
reassignment, transfer, demotion, affecting civil service
employees are within the competence of the CSC and
the court does not have the primary jurisdiction
LAGUNA CATV vs. MARAAN (Nov. 19, 2002)
FACTS: Instead of appealing to the Secretary of Labor,
Laguna CATV filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for
extension of time to file a petition for review.
HELD: An order issued by the duly authorized
representative of the Secretary of Labor may be appealed to
the latter. Petitioner should have first appealed to the
Secretary of Labor instead of filing with the CA a motion for
extension of time to file a petition for review. The contention
that an appeal to the Secretary of Labor would be futile as it
will surely be disapproved, is purely conjectural and
definitely misplaced.
POWER OF SUPERVISION and POWER OF CONTROL
Power of Control:
- direct that an act performed by a
subordinate officer be undone or redone
- the Chief Executive herself may perform
the act if these acts are not in accordance with
what is provided by the law
- power to alter, modify or even affirm
actions taken by the subordinate officers
- power to promulgate rules
- only extends to the executive branch of
the government
Power of Supervision:
- power of oversight; overseeing that the
acts performed by the subordinate officers are in
faithful compliance with the law
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
- limited to the LGUs or local executives
- President is only empowered to oversee that
the functions being performed by the local chief
executives are in accordance with the law but no
power to issue rules not interfere in the affairs of the
LGU
- carries with it the power to discipline and the
power to discipline includes the power to investigate
and impose the proper sanctions if warranted
- delegation of the power to investigate is not
a violation of the rule against undue delegation of
power because the power to discipline is till vested
with the President
- The power of supervision extends to the Liga
NATL LIGA vs. PAREDES (Sept. 27, 2004)
FACTS: DILG was appointed as the Interim Caretaker to
manage and administer the affairs of the Liga, until such time
that the new set of National Liga Officers shall have been duly
elected and assumed office. It issued several orders including
nullifying the Liga elections in Caloocan.
HELD: These acts of the DILG went beyond the sphere
of general supervision and constituted direct interference with
the political affairs, not only of the Liga, but more importantly,
of the barangay as an institution. Clearly, what the DILG
wielded was the power of control which even the President
does not have. Like the government units, the Liga ng mga
Barangay is not subject to control by the Chief Executive or his
alter ego.
Executive secretary exercises not
only power of supervision but also of control
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES vs. PROVINCE OF QUEZON
(Oct 11, 2001)
FACTS: There was a conflict of boundaries between the two
provinces. The Province of Quezon claimed that the survey
conducted by the Technical team of DENR is not a valid survey
in the absence of the authority to conduct a survey signed by
the Office of the President.
HELD: The authority of the team emanated from the Special
Order No. 1170 duly issued by the DENR Secretary, the alter
ego of the President. Being an alter ego, the acts of the DENR
Secretary are presumed to be the acts of the President, unless
expressly repudiated by the latter.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of EAR:
1. Application of the Doctrine of Qualified Political
Agency or the Alter Ego Doctrine
The actions of the department heads under the
executive branch are considered to be the actions of the
president unless disapproved or revoked by the President
herself. There is presumption of regularity of actions.
Exception to the exception: This is not applicable if
the Constitution or the law itself requires that the act be
personally performed by the president.
DIMAISIP vs. CA
FACTS: Dimaisip was awarded with a fish pond by the
Director of Fish and Games Administration. But such decision
was set aside by the Department Secretary and the fish pond
was awarded to Buenaflor. Dimaisip filed an action before the
court.
HELD: This an exception to the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies because the decision was made by the
Department Secretary, who is an alter ego of the President.
QUISIMBING vs. GUMBAN (February 5, 1991)
FACTS: Yap defied the order of the DECS Secretary of her
transfer to another public school district. She filed a petition
for prohibition with the RTC.
HELD: There was no need for exhaustion of administrative
remedies because the act complained of was one made by the
Department Secretary as the alter ego of the President.
Prepared by:
CALO vs. FUERTES (June 29, 1962)
FACTS: The Director of Lands dismissed Calos claim
against a homestead application. He appealed to the
Secretary and then to the President. However, he withdrew
it before the President could act upon it. Calo then filed a
petition for prohibition with the CFI.
HELD: The withdrawal was fatal because it was the last act
required of him in compliance with the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. The withdrawal of
the appeal taken to the President of the Philippines is
tantamount to not appealing at all thereto.
NB: SC already made a reversal of such decision. In
subsequent cases, there is no need to go to the Office of the
President if the order emanates from Department Secretary.
2. Matter is purely legal
An administrative tribunal cannot decide with finality
a legal issue. The final arbiter of a legal issue is the
court.
CUEVAS, ZAMORA, DEMAISIP vs. BACAL (Dec. 6,
2000)
FACTS: Bacal was previously appointed as Chief Public
Attorney of PAO. In 1998, Demaisip was appointed by Pres.
Estrada as Chief Public Defender.
HELD: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies does not apply when the question raised is purely
legal. The question as to the security of tenure is a legal
issue. The case must be lodged before the courts.
CASTRO vs. GLORIA (Aug. 20, 2001)
FACTS: DECS found Castro guilty of immoral conduct and
was dismissed. Casto filed a petition for mandamus with the
RTC contending that this was his first offense, and thus,
suspension and not dismissal from the service is the correct
penalty.
HELD: Where the case involves only legal questions, the
litigant need not exhaust all administrative remedies.
MENDOZA vs. LAXINA (July 14, 2003)
HELD: The issue of whether or not the decision of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod in disciplinary cases is appealable
to the Office of the President, as well as the propriety of
taking an oath of office anew by respondent Barangay
Captain Laxina, are questions of law.
Decisions of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan in
administrative cases involving elective officials of
the municipalities are appealable to the Office of the
President
REGINO vs. PANGASINAN COLLEGES (Nov. 18, 2004)
FACTS: Region was not allowed to take the final exams, and
thus, failed to graduate, because she failed to buy
tickets for their fund raising project. Regino filed a
complaint directly to the court for damages against the
school.
HELD: The doctrine has no bearing in this case since she
her claim is for damages and CHED does not have the
authority to award damages. The exhaustion of
administrative remedies is applicable when there is
competence on the part of the administrative body to
act upon the matter complained of. 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.
Question of Fact vs. Question of Law
Question of Fact: the issue involves the examination
of probative value of evidence to ascertain the truth or
falsity of the allegations
Question of Law: the issue is what should be the law
that ought to be applied on a certain given state of facts
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
3. When the issue is what law or statute to apply
NAPOCOR vs. PRESIDING JUDGE (Oct. 16, 1990)
FACTS: The Province of Misamis Oriental filed a complaint
with the RTC against NAPOCOR. NAPOCOR invoked PD 242
which provides that disputes between agencies of the
government including GOCCs shall be administratively settled
or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice. Respondents relied
on PD 464 which provides collection of real property taxes may
be enforced by civil action.
HELD: Collection of the tax may be enforced by civil action.
PD 464, a special law, prevails over PD 242, which is a general
law. Respondent court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the
civil case.
4. If the application of this doctrine will only cause
grave or irreparable damage or injury to the parties
If logging operations continue despite the fact that the
issue is still pending with the DENR, there may be an
immediate recourse to the court to avoid irreparable
damage.
5. Where the application of this doctrine would only
result in the nullification of the claim being
asserted
Example is as to questioning a de facto officer in
which the action must be filed within a period of 1 year. If
11 months have passed without a decision being rendered,
resort may be made before the court, otherwise, it would
result to nullification
6. Where the amount is too insignificant and there is
delay by the administrative tribunal
7. Application of estoppel
The administrative official asserted that the recourse
is before the court and not before his office. The
administrative official cannot anymore invoke this doctrine
because of the application of estoppel.
8. If there is no timely invocation of this doctrine
9. If the application of this doctrine would result to
denial of due process
SINGSON vs. NLRC (June 19, 1997)
HELD: No need to apply the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies where the Labor Arbiter who made
the decision is the same person who will review it on appeal
since he was promoted to being a Commissioner. Otherwise, it
would result to denial of due process.
ZAMBALES CHROMITE vs. CA (Nov. 7, 1979)
HELD: The reviewing officer must perforce be other than the
officer whose decision is under review. The Doctrine of
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies need not be applied.
SABELLO vs. DECS (Dec. 26, 1989)
HELD: The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and
the application of the exceptions is not a fast and rigid rule.
Taking into consideration that the petition was filed by a non-
lawyer, who claims that poverty denied him the services of a
lawyer, the SC set aside the requirement of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
NB: Compare with Llarena vs. Lacson
10. If the land in question is private
If the subject matter is public land, there must be
exhaustion of administrative remedies. But if it is a private
land, only the civil court has the competence to try the
issue.
11. Failure of the government official from whom relief
is sought to act promptly and expeditiously
Prepared by:
REVIEW POWERS OF THE COURTS
(JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS)
In the review of administrative decisions, the
findings of facts of administrative bodies must not only
be accorded respect but even finality as long as the
findings are supported by substantial evidence and the
matter is within the competence and/or jurisdiction of
the administrative tribunal or officer
It is not within the competence of the court to
weigh conflicting evidence or testimonies submitted by
the parties because that role is given to the
administrative tribunal
Courts do not have the power of supervision over
the exercise and discretion by the administrative
tribunal
The court is not allowed to substitute its own
judgment for that of the administrative officer because
the administrative tribunal possesses the skills and
expertise necessary to determine matters of evidence,
factual issues or technical matters
If it involves the interpretation of contracts such as
a contract of lease, it is within the competence of courts
and not of the administrative tribunals
If what is violated is the terms and conditions of a
Certificate of Public Convenience granted in a franchise
by a government agency, it is within the power of the
administrative tribunal
Exceptions to the rule that factual findings must be
given finality:
1. The procedure conducted by the
administrative officer is irregular, or improper
2. There is collusion or fraud
3. When there has been error committed
4. There is disregard of the rules that would
indicate the lack of observance of due process
5. Utter disregard of the evidence that would
cause prejudice to the parties
6. Where the administrative tribunal has
exercised such function in a whimsical, capricious or
arbitrary manner
7. Where the law itself authorizes a review of
such decision
If there is a disregard of facts by
the administrative tribunal, this would warrant a review
even of factual findings of administrative tribunal
FABIAN vs. AGUSTIN (Feb. 14, 2003)
FACTS: The Ombudsman Investigation Officer found
Agustin guilty of grave misconduct as well as immoral
conduct and recommended his dismissal. Ombudsman
Desierto approved said finding modifying that the offense is
only misconduct and suspension for 1 year. Desierto
inhibited and Deputy Ombudsman Guerrero dismissed the
complaint.
HELD: The SC found it necessary to look into the factual
evidence of the case and disregard the rule on the finality of
factual findings of administrative tribunals because of the
conflicting findings that is present in the case.
Courts cannot accept evidence not presented previously
in the administrative trial because the function of the
court is limited to finding out if there is substantial
evidence, whether or not the procedure is complied with
or whether or not there is observance of due process
and not in a manner of ascertaining the technical or
factual matters of the case.
But the superior body which makes the review of the
findings of the subordinate may still require the parties
to present additional evidence
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
The superior official can validly order the conduct of new
proceedings and acquire additional evidence but this
power is discretionary.
Where there is a question that is purely legal, this would
not prevent the court from reviewing the decision of the
administrative tribunal
Instances when court may review administrative
decisions:
1. Issue involves the constitutionality or legality of law,
treaty, ordinance or administrative order
2. Issue involves jurisdiction of the administrative agency
3. Findings of facts are necessary in order to determine the
findings of law
4. Where there is an error of law committed by the
administrative officer
Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts
Where the finding of fact is intimately related to or
dependent upon the question of law, then the court in
order to ascertain the more important issue which is
the question of law, may examine or inquire the
factual setting in order to determine the question of
law.
Example: whether a person is a tenant and has a
claim not only to possess but also to cultivate the land
SANADO vs. CA (April 17, 2001)
FACTS: Sanado was granted a Fishpond Permit was cancelled
thereafter. He elevated the matter to the Office of the
President but his appeal was dismissed.
HELD: The action of an administrative agency in granting or
denying, or in suspending or revoking, a license, permit,
franchise, or certificate or public convenience and necessity is
administrative or quasi-judicial. If petitioner disagrees with the
decision of the Office of the President, he should have elevated
the matter by petition for review before the CA. The appeal
must be with the CA unless the law itself provides that the
appeal must be taken directly to the SC.
MATUGUINA (MIWP) vs. CA (Oct. 24, 1996)
FACTS: A Provisional Timber License was issued to Milagros.
Milagros is the majority stockholder of MIWP but disposed of
her shares later. It was contended that there was
encroachment upon a timber area. MIWP filed a complaint
before the RTC for damages.
HELD: The issue of whether or not petitioner MIWP is an alter
ego of Milagros Matuguina is one of fact, and which should
have been threshed out in said administrative proceedings, and
not in the prohibition proceedings in the trial court.
Responsibility of the Prosecutor
To determine whether there is a prima facie case, and
he cannot be compelled by mandamus. Mandamus will
only prosper if the exercise of the power by the officer
is ministerial, not if it involves the exercise of
discretion.
Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari) and
Rule 65 (Special Civil Action for Certiorari)
Rule 45: Only questions of law may be raised
Rule 65: Question raised is whether or not the tribunal
or officer acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
THREE-FOLD RESPONSIBILITY OF A PUBLIC OFFICER
Criminal, Administrative and Civil
The grant of immunity in criminal and civil cases is by
express conferment of law. Administrative authorities do
not have the power to grant immunity in criminal and civil
suits to offenders.
- Ex: EO 14-A where PCGG is authorized to grant
immunity from criminal prosecution to a person who
provides valuable information or who testifies in the
Prepared by:
investigation conducted by the PCGG in order that
there is conviction of this unlawful getting of wealth
How about immunity from civil suits? There is no
clear provision in EO 14-A but Article 2028 of the
Civil as to amicable settlements may be applied
- Ex: Section 70 of the Ombudsman Act where the
Ombudman may grant immunity from criminal
prosecution to any person whose testimony is
necessary for the successful investigation and
prosecution of cases against the offender subject to
conditions, among them:
1. That the testimony of the person is essential or
vital to the prosecution;
2. Such information is not yet in possession of the
government;
3. He must be the least guilty.
GATCHALIAN vs. NALDOZA (Sept. 29, 1999)
FACTS: Petitioner filed a disbarment case against Atty.
Naldoza. Naldoza was acquitted in the criminal case for
estafa but was held civilly liable. Naldoza contended that
disbarment case must be dismissed on the ground that he
had already been acquitted in the criminal case.
HELD: The SC in disbarment proceedings is acting in an
entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in
trying criminal cases. In a criminal case, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is necessary. In an administrative case for
disbarment or suspension, clearly preponderant evidence is
all that is required. A criminal prosecution will not constitute
a prejudicial question in the administrative proceedings. A
finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result
in a finding of liability in the administrative case.
Respondents acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively. The trial courts finding of civil liability
against the respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar
finding in the administrative action before this Court.
There is no provision in law which provides for
prescription of administrative cases
FLORIA vs. SUNGA (Nov. 14, 2001)
FACTS: A complaint was filed against Floria for immorality
and falsification of birth certificates. Floria contended that
for 25 years, complainant was silent which constitutes
laches.
HELD: Administrative offenses do not prescribe. The fact
that the illicit relationship between Floria and Abadilla has
ceased will only mitigate her culpability. On the charge for
falsification, which constitutes the administrative offense of
dishonesty, Floria is liable.
OCAMPO vs. OMBUDSMAN (Jan. 18, 2000)
FACTS: An administrative case was filed against petitioner
before the Ombudsman for serious misconduct and/or fraud
or willful breach of trust for failure to remit training fees.
Petitioner contended that the criminal complaint for estafa
and falsification filed against him was already dismissed by
the RTC.
HELD: The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose
administrative action filed against petitioner. Considering the
difference in the quantum of evidence, the findings and
conclusions in one proceeding should not necessarily be
binding on the other.
Where decision is final and executory
CSC Law and EO 292 declare that the decision is
final and executory in administrative cases where
the penalty is:
- fine not exceeding 30 days salary
- one month suspension
- reprimand
In all other instances, appeal may be taken
Where a decision in administrative has a finding of
non-liability of if the finding is sanction not to
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
exceed these limitations, the law declares that such
decision is final and executory
CSC vs. DACOYCOY (April 29, 1999)
FACTS: Dacoycoy was found guilty of nepotism and CSC
imposed a penalty of dismissal upon him. He filed with the CA
a special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction.
CA reversed the decision of CSC.
HELD: It is the CSC who should appeal the decision of the CA
to the SC since it is the party who was adversely affected by
such decision. It is not the complainant since he is merely a
witness and neither the respondent because precisely there has
been a declaration of his innocence.
PAREDES vs. CSC (Dec. 4, 1990)
HELD: In Philippine Civil Service Law, there can be no appeal
from such decision exonerating the respondent where the
decision originally imposes no sanction.
NB: Compare with CSC vs. Dacoycoy where it was on appeal
where respondent was exonerated.
Sec. 37 of CSC Law in relation to Sec. 39
The aggrieved party in an administrative case has the
right to appeal an adverse decision if the law itself
gives him such right by reason of Sec. 39 authorizing
an appeal as remedy to be availed of by the party
adversely affected by the decision.
Sec. 37 speaks of the appellate jurisdiction of the
commission in those instances where appeal may be
taken from the decision of the agency. The decision of
department is appealed to the CSC
DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS AND CONDONATION
This doctrine provides that public officials cannot be
subject to disciplinary action for administrative misconduct
during a prior term
But this should not prevent the state from continuing
with the criminal proceedings
Bar Question:
AGUINALDO vs. SANTOS (Aug. 21, 1992)
FACTS: Pending the administrative case, Aguinaldo ran and
was elected for governor.
HELD: Applying the doctrine of forgiveness and condonation,
Gov. Aguinaldo could not be held administratively liable for a
prior act committed. The previous term is distinct from the
succeeding term.
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
The order or decision of the administrative tribunal
shall, upon finality of such decision, has the force and
effect of a final decision just like in court cases
The parties are no longer allowed to reopen the
issues once it has already been determined and in fact the
decision has already become final. Such decision is
conclusive upon the parties and their privies, on the same
cause of action arising from the same facts.
Doctrine of res judicata not applicable in the following
instances:
1. Where it involves the issue of citizenship
2. Where there are supervening events that
make it imperative in order to serve justice
3. Where the application of this doctrine would
mean sacrificing justice for technicality
4. Where there has been waiver of this doctrine
5. When there was capriciousness or
arbitrariness in the exercise of the discretion.
6. When there was summary dismissal
Prepared by:
-oOo-
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
Basis for the creation of the PNP:
Article 16, Section 6 of the Constitution which
provides for the establishment and the maintenance
by the state of one police force which shall be
national in scope and civilian in character.
NAPOLCOM shall have administrative supervision
over the affairs of the police. The local chief
executive shall have authority over the police as
may be provided by law
The present Constitution makes it clear that there is now
a separation between the AFP and the PNP
No element of the PNP shall be military and any position
in the PNP shall not be occupied by any active officer of
the AFP
Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the
AFP acts as the protector of the people and the state
BQ: What is the relationship of the Dept of National Defense
through the AFP and the DILG through the PNP?
A: Section 12, RA 6975 (Reorganization of the PNP)
provides that the DILG has the principal or primary role
of preserving internal security. The AFP has the
principal role of preserving external security.
Exception: An instance where the AFP would play the
role of preserving internal security if there are serious
threats to the national security and public order. A
situation wherein the insurgents (Abu Sayaff, MILF,
NPA) may have gained a considerable foothold. In this
situation, PNP plays a supporting role.
MANALO vs. SISTOZA (Aug. 11, 1999)
FACTS: Pres Aquino appointed respondents to PNP
Superintendents and Directors without the approval of
Commission on Appointments (CA). Manalo argued that PNP
is akin to AFP where appointment to colonel and naval
captain requires confirmation.
HELD: CA confirmation is not needed. PNP is separate and
distinct from the AFP.
BQ: Section 26 in relation to Section 31 of RA 6975 (PNP
Law) is unconstitutional since it provides that the
appointment of the Chief Superintendent and senior
superintendent of the PNP which must have the concurrence
of the Commission on Appointments (CA). Article 7, Section
16 of the Constitution excludes the senior positions of the
PNP from requirement that such appointment must have
concurrence of the CA.
Mode of Appeal in the PNP
People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) has
jurisdiction to hear citizen's complaints and of
course those complaints filed before that body
where the penalty imposable is forfeiture of salaries
or suspension of more that 30 days or dismissal
from the service
Decision of the PLEB is appealable within 10 days to
the Regional Appellate Board (RAB)
NAPOLCOM has appellate machineries - Regional
Appellate Board (RAB) and National Appellate Board
(NAB)
RAB has the appellate jurisdiction over decisions
rendered not only by the PLEB but also by the
Regional Director of the PNP
Decision of the chief of the PNP is appealable to the
NAB within 10 days from receipt of such decision
NAB/RAB must decide a period of 60 days
timeframe
If no such decision by the NAB or RAB within such
period, the decision shall be final and executory but
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
without prejudice to an appeal to the Secretary of the
DILG
Decision of the DILG secretary may be appealed the
the CSC
PLEB/
Regl Director -------> RAB ----------> Sec of DILG -------> CSC
of PNP 10 days 60 days
Chief -------> RAB ----------> Sec of DILG -------> CSC
of PNP 10 days 60 days
CABADA vs. ALUNAN (Feb. 22, 1996)
FACTS: RAB affirmed the decision of the Regional Director
finding petitioners guilty of grave misconduct. Petitioners filed
with the Secretary of the DILG and Chairman of the
NAPOLCOM their Appeal and Petition for Review.
HELD: The appeal is defective because the appeal should not
be taken before the NAPOLCOM which already exercises
appellate authority through the NAB and RAB. the proper body
should be the Secretary of the DILG. Cabadas appeal was
addressed to the Honorable Secretary of the DILG as
Chairman and Presiding Officer of the NAPOLCOM.
Section 46 of the RA 7975
If a member of the PNP is criminally charged, the
offense must be investigated by the regular courts
(MTC, RTC, and Sandiganbayan [as to high-ranking
officers]). It must be lodged first before the
prosecutors office for the finding of probable cause.
If such probable cause is found, a criminal complaint
is to be filed in the regular courts.
Courts Martial is applied to the members of the AFP
and not anymore applicable to the PNP
Section 42 of the Civil Service Law
Preventive suspension of a public officer must be for a
fixed period and must not exceed 90 days
Exception: Section 47 of RA 7975 provides for the
indefinite suspension of member of PNP if he is
charged with a grave offense punishable by 6 years
and 1 day or more
HIMAGAN vs. PEOPLE (Oct. 7, 1994)
FACTS: Himagan was implicated in a murder and attempted
murder case. The trial court issued an order suspending
petitioner until the termination of the case.
HELD: Suspension from office of the member of the PNP
charged with grave offense where the penalty is 6 years and 1
day or more shall last until the termination of the case. The
suspension cannot be lifted before the termination of the case.
PNP members are treated differently since they carry weapons
and the badge of the law which can be used to harass or
intimidate witnesses against them.
Section 51 of the RA 7975
The power of the mayor over members of the PNP is
one of operational control and supervision
Operational control means the power to direct and to
oversee and inspect police units to deploy
This cannot be exercised within 30 days prior and 30
days after the election
ANDAYA vs. RTC
FACTS: The mayor did not choose from the list of 5 nominees
for Chief of Police submitted by the Regional Director. The
nominees are taken from a pool of eligible officers as so
screened by the Seniors Officers Promotion and Selection
Board.
HELD: The Regional Police Director has the prerogative to
name the five eligibles for the position of Chief of Police
without interference from local executives. The mayor has only
a limited power of selecting one from among the list and he
cannot require to include the name of any officer, no matter
how qualified, in the list of five to be submitted to the mayor .
Prepared by:
In the case of province, the choice is smaller
because the list submitted consists only of 3 names,
not 5. And the governor chooses among the 3.
ALUNAN vs. ASUNCION (Jan. 28, 2000)
FACTS: Pursuant to the resolution issued by then Sec.
Alunan, the members of the Criminal Investigation Service
(CIS) were deprived of their police powers.
HELD: The questioned resolution implements RA 6975. The
intention of the law is to make the PNP wholly a civilian in
character and not a unit of the AFP. If follows therefore that
members of the PNP must be wholly uniformed officers of
the PNP. If no case therefore shall there be authorized non-
uniform personnel with police powers. The basis of the claim
for the CIS members was RA 5750, which provides police
powers for them. RA 6975 repealed RA 5750.
-oOo-
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG)
Law applied to OSG is PD 478, which are also found
in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987
Lawyer of the government, its instrumentalities,
agencies and officials in any proceeding or investigation
which requires the services of a lawyer
OSG may take a position contrary to the stand of
another office
ORBOS vs. CSC (Sept. 12, 1990)
FACTS: Appointments made by Orbos in the DOTC were
questioned. CSC ordered the cancellation of the
appointment. CSC does not have that power since
appointment is upon the sound discretion of the appointing
authority. DOTC was represented by the OSG and was
questioned by the CSC.
HELD: It is the duty of the Solicitor General to make known
to the Court what position best upholds the position of the
government. The Solicitor General should not abdicate this
duty. If ever such decision taken by the Solicitor General is
different from that of another administrative agency or
officer, then the latter may represent itself through an in-
house counsel.
General rule: GOCCs must be represented by the
Office of the Government Corporate Council (OGCC)
EO 292 recognizes the power of the OSG to
deputize other government lawyers as their deputies
NAPOCOR vs. NLRC (May 29, 1997)
HELD: The lawyer designated as "special attorney-OSG" is a
mere representative of the OSG. The OSG continues to be
the principal counsel for the NAPOCOR, and as such, the
Solicitor General is the party entitled to be furnished copies
of orders, notices and decisions. Since service of said
decision was never made on the OSG, the period to appeal
the decision to the NLRC did not commence to run.
REPUBLIC vs. DESIERTO (Sept. 23, 2002)
HELD: The Court allowed the petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 filed by the Republic through the PCGG (not the
OSG) assailing the dismissal by the Ombudsman of the graft
complaint against Cojuangco et al. involving the acquisition
of oil mills using coco levy funds. Although the OSG should
have filed the petition, substantial justice would be better
served if petition is entertained. The unauthorized filing was
ratified and the defect was cured when the OSG signed as
co-counsel for the Republic in the consolidated reply.
Exceptions (OSG is prohibited from representing the
public official):
1. Where public official is charged criminally
2. where public official is sued civilly arising from the
commission of a felony
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
URBANO vs. CHAVEZ (March 19, 1990)
GO vs. CHAVEZ (March 19, 1990)
FACTS: A criminal case was instituted against DILG Sec.
Santos for violations of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Go filed a complaint for damages against Chavez for alleged
defamatory imputations. OSG appeared in behalf of the public
officials concerned.
HELD: A public official who is sued in a criminal case is
actually sued in his personal capacity inasmuch as his principal,
the State, can never be the author of a wrongful act, much less
commit a crime. The OSG is not authorized to represent a
public official at any stage of a criminal case or in a civil suit for
damages arising from a felony.
-oOo-
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (OMB)
Created under Section 5, Article XI of the Constitution
Its powers are provided under Section 12, Article XI of
the Constitution
It has the power, function and duty to act promptly on
complaints filed against public officials
Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution provides that
the OMB is tasked to investigate any act or omission of any
public official when such act appears to be improper or
illegal or any act of malfeasance, misfeasance and
nonfeasance committed by those in public service
LAUREL vs. DESIERTO (April 12, 2002)
FACTS: Petitioner now assails the jurisdiction of the OMB on
the ground that he is not a public officer.
HELD: The delegation to the individual as some of the
sovereign functions of government is the most important
characteristic in determining whether a position is a public
officer or not. The National Centennial Commission performs
sovereign functions. Salary is a mere incident and forms no
part of the office.
The OMB has the duty to act promptly on cases
TATAD vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (March 21, 1988)
FACTS: Tatad contended that the prosecutions long delay in
the filing of cases with the Sandiganbayan deprived him of his
constitutional right to due process and the right to a speedy
disposition of the cases against him
HELD: The long delay in the termination of the preliminary
investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case is violative
of the constitutional right of the accused to due process. A
delay of close to 3 years can not be deemed reasonable or
justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the case
at bar. The informations in the various criminal cases filed
should be dismissed.
ANGCHANGCO vs. OMBUDSMAN (Feb. 13, 1977)
FACTS: A complaint for graft, estafa/malversation and
misconduct was filed against petitioner. After more than 6
years, the criminal complaints remain unresolved.
HELD: The inordinate delay of more than 6 years by the OMB
in resolving the criminal complaints against petitioner to be
violative of his constitutionally guaranteed right to due process
and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him, thus
warranting the dismissal of said criminal cases.
ROQUE, MABANGLO vs. OMBUDSMAN (May 12, 1999)
FACTS: After the initial Orders finding the cases proper for
preliminary investigation were issued on June 1991 and the
subsequent submission of their counter-affidavits, until the
present or more than 6 years, no resolution has been issued by
the OMB and no case has been filed with the appropriate court
against the petitioners.
HELD: The failure of the OMB to resolve a complaint that has
been pending for six years is clearly violative of this mandate
and the public officials rights. The aggrieved party is entitled to
Prepared by:
the dismissal of the complaint.
Power of investigation of the Ombudsman
The OMB has the power to investigate any type of
complaint, even if it is unverified
Under CSC Law and EO 292, there is a need for the
complaint to be verified unless the same is initiated
by the disciplining authority
The form of complaint does not subscribe to any
need for verification for the purpose of the conduct
of investigation. The Constitution and law does not
require a formal complaint
DIAZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (March 8, 1993)
FACTS: The Senate dismissed all the charges against PCGG
and Diaz. With the approval of the OMB, Parentela found
probable cause to conduct a preliminary investigation against
the petitioner.
HELD: The testimony given at any fact finding investigation
and charges raised in a pleading before the court constitute
a sufficient basis for the conduct of an investigation of the
OMB.
ALMONTE vs. VASQUEZ (May 23, 1995)
FACTS: Subpoenas were issued by the OMB in connection
with his investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that
funds representing savings from unfilled positions in the
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) had
been illegally disbursed. Petitioners alleged that they cannot
produce documents relating to personal services and salary
vouchers of EIIB employees on the plea that such documents
are classified.
HELD: The Constitution expressly enjoins the OMB to act on
any complaint filed "in any form or manner" concerning
official acts or omissions, even though, as in this case, the
complaint is unsigned and unverified.
DELOSO vs. DOMINGO (Nov. 21, 1990)
FACTS: Deloso claimed in the preliminary investigation by
the OMB, that the crime of multiple murder allegedly
committed by him was not office-related, and therefore, the
OMB has no authority to conduct the preliminary
investigation against his person.
HELD: The authority of the OMB covers all kinds of
offenses, all misfeasances, malfeasances and non-feasances
committed by public officers and employees. It covers even
offenses not committed in relation to the duties of a public
officers.
UY vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (March 20, 2001)
FACTS: A motion for clarification was filed by the OMB as to
the resolution of the SC dated February 22, 2000 that the
prosecutory power of the OMB only extends to cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the OMB has no
authority to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of
regular courts.
HELD: The OMB is clothed with authority to conduct
preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases
involving public officers and employees, not only those within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts as well. The SC now went
back to its earlier ruling in the Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan
case
Section 15 of RA 6770 confers plenary powers to
the OMB to investigate and prosecute any act or
omission of a public official when such act appears to be
improper, unjust, illegal or inefficient
Section 11 of RA 6770 authorizes the Office of the
Special Prosecutor to try cases before the
Sandiganbayan and this would likewise mean authority
to investigate and prosecute cases before the regular
courts
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
There is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the
OMB and similarly representative agencies of government,
such as the DOJ, over cases filed in regular courts (MTC,
RTC) involving low-ranking officers. High-ranking officers
are within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
If the charges filed before the regular courts has
nothing to do with the official functions of the public
officer, there is no need for the prior authority from the
OMB
ORCULLO vs. GERVACIO (Sept. 14, 1999)
FACTS: An employee of Councilor Orcullo filed a graft case
before the OMB against Orcullo for unpaid compensation.
Orcullo questioned the authority of Gervacio.
HELD: Section 15 of RA 6770 does not vest the OMB with
authority to order a public official to pay a money claim of an
aggrieved party. As a money claim against petitioner
personally, the claim is within the jurisdiction of a court of
proper jurisdiction (depending on the amount of the claim).
SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU (Nov. 9, 1993)
FACTS: Rape and homicide cases were filed against Sanchez.
Sanchez questioned the authority of the DOJ prosecutors
conducting the preliminary investigation on the ground that it is
only the OMB which has the power to conduct preliminary
investigation against a public officer.
HELD: The authority of the OMB is one of shared and
concurrent jurisdiction with other investigating body of the
government such as the DOJ. Take note that this was not in
connection of his official functions.
OMB may take over the investigation of any case at any
stage when the act or omission of the public officer is
office related
Jurisdiction of the OMBUDSMAN
Administrative and criminal proceedings against public
officers
All appointive and elective officers are subject to the
jurisdiction of the OMB.
Exceptions: Where the respondent is a member of the
judiciary, a member of Congress or an impeachable officer
MACEDA vs. VASQUEZ ( April 22, 1993)
FACTS: A criminal action was initiated by the OMB against
Judge Maceda for falsification of his certificate of service.
HELD: OMB has no jurisdiction. it is only the SC that can
oversee the judges and court personnels compliance with all
laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if
they commit any violation thereof.
DOLALAS vs. OMBUDSMAN (Dec. 24, 1996)
HELD: The OMB has no jurisdiction to initiate an investigation
into the alleged undue delay by the judge in the disposition of
the criminal case, which involves the determination of whether,
in resolving the alarms and scandals case, petitioner-judge
acted in accordance with the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such is
clearly administrative in nature over which the SC has
administrative control and supervision.
CAOIBES vs. OMBUDSMAN (July 19, 2001)
FACTS: This involves the issue who has the right to an office
table between two judges.
HELD: The OMB is duty bound to have all cases against
judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the
Supreme Court for determination as to whether and
administrative aspect is involved therein.
Bar Question:
FUENTES vs. OMBUDSMAN (Oct. 23, 2001)
FACTS: Order of Judge Fuentes was questioned before the
OMB alleging that there were anomalies in the issuance thereof
and in the service of the writ of execution.
Prepared by:
HELD: It is only the SC which can look into the issue on
whether or not the order issued by the judge is illegal or
unjust, or whether or not it is within the scope of the judges
official duties.
Before any criminal or civil action may prosper
against a judge for violations of Art. 204 and 205 RPC
may be entertained by the OMB, there must be a final
and authoritative judicial declaration that indeed the
decision rendered by the judge is unjust
The OMB has the power to dismiss outright a
criminal case without the conduct of preliminary
investigation. It has discretion to determine whether
the evidence is sufficient to establish probable cause
and to dismiss if the evidence is not sufficient
Such power cannot be impugned by the court
because this would involve a factual finding
DUTERTE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (April 27, 1998)
FACTS: OMB-Mindanao requested COAs Special Audit
Team to submit affidavits. Duterte et. al., were not given
copies of these affidavits. They were only asked to file a
comment on the civil case and COA Report.
HELD: There was no due process. When Duterte et. al.,
were asked to file a comment on a COA Audit Report, they
were already being subjected to preliminary investigation
without being informed that they were already made
respondents. Also, they were not furnished a single affidavit
of any person charging them of any offense. One of the
compelling reasons for the dismissal of the case against
them is the fact that no undue injury was caused to the city
government because even before the adverse finding of the
COA came out, the city government rescinded the contract.
So the cancellation of the contract negated alleged bad faith.
GARCIA vs. PRIMO (Feb. 5, 2003)
FACTS: Cebu Mayor was charged with graft with regard to
a contract he entered with an asphalt distributor. The basis
was an audit report of the COA and they were directed to
file their pleading. Garcia questioned this order and cited
the Duterte ruling.
HELD: Due process was complied with. The Duterte ruling
does not apply because apart from this audit report of COA,
the auditors executed an affidavit complaint under oath
implicating as respondent Mayor Garcia. More than that
there was a fact finding investigation conducted by the OMB
of Visayas, prosecutor Tagaan. Even if Tagaan resigned, he
may still be called upon testify. And he is not the real
complainant. The real complainant is the State represented
by COA and the OMB.
GARCIA vs. MOJICA (Sept. 10, 1999)
FACTS: OMB ordered the preventive suspension of Mayor
Garcia involving the anomalous purchase of asphalt. Garcia
claims that he could no longer be placed under preventive
suspension because of his re-election citing the case of
AGUINALDO.
HELD: While petitioner can no longer be held
administratively liable for signing the contract with F. E.
Zuellig, however, this should not prejudice the filing of any
case other than administrative against petitioner. The OMB
can still issue preventive suspension order even if the act in
question happened during a previous term.
There is no violation of due process even if an order of
preventive suspension is issued prior to the holding of a
preliminary investigation because preventive suspension is
not a penalty.
If there is an absence of a verified complaint, the
OMB cannot proceed with a formal investigation
The OMB must conduct a fact finding committee for
the purpose of initiating the verified complaint but not
for the purpose of conducting a formal inquiry because
this would violate the respondent's constitutional right
of confrontation-- to confront his accusers
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
If simply on the basis of an anonymous complaint a
public officer is required to file his counter affidavit, this is
a violation of due process
YABUT vs. OMBUDSMAN (June 17, 1994)
FACTS: This case arose because of a traffic incident. Pending
investigation, the OMB issued a preventive suspension order
placing Yabut under suspension for 90 days. OMB meted the
penalty of 90-day suspension. Yabut contended that the 82
days served by him should be credited.
HELD: The nature of the preventive suspension is merely a
preliminary step in the administrative adjudication precisely to
protect and insure the veracity and security of vital records.
The period of preventive suspension cannot be credited to
whatever penalty that may be meted out.
Bar Question:
BUENASEDA vs. FLAVIER (Sept. 21, 1993)
FACTS: Dr. Buenaseda of the Hospital of the National Center
for Mental Health and some employees were accused of graft
practices. OMB issued a preventive suspension order.
Respondents contended that there was yet no formal hearing
conducted on the matter and so, the issuance of the
preventive suspension order violated due process.
HELD: By nature, a preventive suspension order is not a
penalty. Therefore, there was no violation of due process. The
issuance of the preventive suspension order is not by reason of
disciplinary action taken by the administrative body. The
power of the OMB covers not only employees within its office
but also other offices of the government.
Preventive Suspension:
OMB: maximum of 6 months
Civil Service Law: maximum of 90 days
LGC (for elective officials): maximum of 60 days
CASTILLO-CO vs. BARBERS (June 16, 1998)
FACTS: Gov. Castillo-Co was charged with graft practices.
Preventive suspension was decreed on him. It was raised that
under the LGC, the maximum preventive suspension is only 60
days.
HELD: Administrative proceedings taken by the OMB
pursuant to its provisions under the OMB Law ought to be
followed. In other words, the OMB can mete out the
maximum preventive suspension of six (6) months. Preventive
suspension was merely a preliminary step in an administrative
investigation.
Section 27 of RA 6770 provides that suspension
exceeding more than one month but not more than one
year, or even dismissal from the service, in all these
instances, the decision of the OMB can be subject of an
appeal.
ALBA vs. NITORREDA (March 13, 1996)
HELD: Under the OMB Act, where the penalty imposed in the
administrative proceeding is suspension not exceeding 30 days
or a fine not to exceed one month salary, the decision shall
become final and executory. there is no violation of due
process because the law has made such imposition of penalty
as final and executory. Right to appeal is granted by law and
thus, may be withdrawn by the law itself.
Effect of filing appeal:
General Rule: The filing of an appeal in
administrative law will stay the decision
ExceptionS: If the law itself, the Constitution or the
implementing rules as allowed by law allow the
execution of decision pending appeal
CSC Law and EO 292, as applied to appointive public
officers, provide that the decision is executory despite
appeal. This is an exception of the rule.
Section 68 of the LGC provides that the appeal shall
not stay the decision. In the event that the party
who appeals wins the appeal, he shall be considered
Prepared by:
as placed under preventive suspension and he is
entitled to the payment of compensation and other
benefits due him during such period of preventive
suspension which was imposed originally as a
penalty
NB: Lapid and Liggayu rulings providing that
suspension pending appeal cannot be executed
have been abandoned by AO-17 published on Nov.
3, 2003. It provides that an appeal shall not stop
the decision from being executory
Basis of AO-17 is the Constitution which recognizes
the power of the OMB to promulgate its own rules
of procedure. Sec. 18 of RA 6770 also provides for
the same power.
Appeal from a decision of the Ombudsman
For administrative cases, the appeal should be
taken to the CA within 10 days from receipt of the
adverse decision of the OMB, as provided under Rule 43
of the Rules of Court
For criminal cases, a MFR is filed with the OMB
within 5 days from receipt of the decision. The appeal,
thereafter, should be taken before the SC under Rule 65
which means it should be based on grave abuse of
discretion
MORONG WATER vs. OMBUDSMAN (March 17, 2000)
HELD: Any appeal or application for remedy against a
decision or finding of the OMB may only be entertained by
the Sc on a pure question of law. Findings of fact of the
OMB, when supported by substantial evidence, are
conclusive.
FABIAN vs. DESIERTO (Sept. 16, 1998)
HELD: Appeals from decisions of the OMB in administrative
disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under Rule 43
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The SC declared
unconstitutional Section 27 of RA 6770 which provided that
decisions of the OMB may be appealed to the SC by way of
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. Such provision was violative of Section 30, Article VI
of the Constitution, as it expanded the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court without its advice and consent.
ESTRADA vs. DESIERTO
FACTS: Estrada filed a complaint against the BIR Deputy
Commissioner on the ground that she usurped the functions
of the commissioner by her issuance of constructive restraint
against the Citibank deposit of Estrada.
HELD: There was no usurpation of functions because there
was this authority given to the deputy commissioner by the
President herself. So she acted with color of authority
coming from GMA.
Authority of the Ombudsman to look into bank
deposits of public officers:
BANCO FILIPINO vs. PURISIMA
HELD: The SC upheld the validity of the issuance by the
Tanodbayan of such order for for the production of bank
records of a BIR employee, who was charged for violation of
RA 3019.
MARQUEZ vs. DESIERTO (June 23, 2001)
FACTS: OMB ordered the bank manager of Unionbank to
produce the bank records or accounts of Lagdameo in
connection with the fact-finding investigation conducted by
the OMB pertaining to alleged violation of the anti-graft and
corrupt practices act.
HELD: SC ruled that the OMB has no power to look into
such bank deposits. In the case at bar, there is yet no
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
pending litigation before any court of competent authority. the
cases brought before the Office of the Ombudsman were only
in the fact-finding stage, not in the formal investigation of
cases against the public officer.
Before an in camera inspection may be allowed:
1. there must be a pending case before a court of competent
jurisdiction
2. the account must be clearly identified,
3. the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending
case before the court of competent jurisdiction
4. The bank personnel and the account holder must be
notified to be present during the inspection, and
5. such inspection may cover only the account identified in
the pending case.
Reconciling Banco Filipino and Marquez cases
If what is being issued by the OMB is in connection of the
conduct of fact-finding investigation-- this violates RA 1405
(Secrecy of Deposits Act) because the OMB here is trying
to get information to be used against the public officer.
Exceptions to the Secrecy of Deposits Act:
1. There is a pending litigation and court orders the
production of such documents;
2. When the disclosure of such records of bank accounts is
upon authority of the bank depositor.
3. Where the bank itself conducts an audit of its own
accounts to determine whether there has been commission
of bank frauds. The Central Bank has the authority to look
into bank deposits because it is authorized under the law.
4. In impeachment cases
If there has been a formal case lodged and that case
identified the specific account, there may be a proper
disclosure, and on the basis of the order issued by the
court.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA)
COA is an independent constitutional office tasked to
examine, audit and settle accounts of government
pertaining to receipts and revenues of government as well
as the disbursement of public funds and property
AGUINALDO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
HELD: Despite the allowance made by COA of the
disbursement of funds, it will not prevent the OMB from
investigating the same matter because audit made by COA is
different from the investigation to be conducted by the OMB,
which is the determination on whether or not there was
violation of the law.
Basic responsibilities of COA
1. The COA has the responsibility and power to
examine and audit all accounts pertaining to the revenue
and receipts of government as well as the disbursements
or expenditures or uses of public funds and property
2. COA has the authority to promulgate rules and
regulations and to prevent and disallow unnecessary,
irregular, excessive expenditures of public funds or
property
Extent of jurisdiction of COA
authority of COA covers all offices,
agencies, instrumentalities of government, including water
districts
COA does not have the authority to look
into private institutions, except if that private institution is
receiving or enjoying some kind of subsidy from the
government
PNB is no longer subject to COA audit,
except in so far as the subsidy of government in that bank
is concerned
The power to examine and audit of COA
is not exclusive
DBP vs. COA (Jan. 16, 2002)
Prepared by:
HELD: COA does not have the sole and exclusive power to
examine and audit government banks. The Central Bank
(BSP) has concurrent jurisdiction to examine and audit, or
cause the examination and audit, of government banks. Still,
the COA's audit prevails over that of the Central Bank (BSP)
since the COA is the constitutionally mandated auditor of
government bank. But Central Bank (BSP) is devoid of
authority to allow or disallow expenditures of government
banks since this function belongs exclusively to the COA.
This power is given exclusively to the COA under the
constitution.
CIR vs. COA (218 SCRA 204)
HELD: Upon the recommendation of the BIR, the
Department of Finance may grant an informers reward
pursuant to the provision of the NIRC. This informers
reward may be the subject of the auditorial scrutiny of the
COA and the COA may disallow such grant of informers
reward. However, courts may determine whether the
disallowance made by the COA of the grant of informers
reward is proper or not.
CAGATIN vs. COA
HELD: If there has been a decision rendered by the CSC as
to the propriety of the payment of backwages to employees
and such decision has become final, the finality precludes
the COA from setting aside or disallowing the payment of
backwages to the employees concerned, in relation to the
concept of res judicata.
NHA vs. COA (226 SCRA 65)
FACTS: One of the conditions to extend to the loan
contract between the NHA and a German entity is the
extension of the services contract of the German consultant.
COA disallowed such renewal.
HELD: COA has the power to look into any disbursement
and to disallow such disbursement if the same is irregular,
unnecessary, extravagant, excessive or unconscionable. the
renewal of the services agreement in favor of the German
consultant was found by the COA as unnecessary expense
on the part of the government.
RODRIGO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Feb. 18, 1999)
HELD: Authority of OMB to investigate is separate and
distinct from the power of the COA to examine and audit
accounts and transactions of the government. It will not
bar the OMB from proceeding with its own investigation to
determine the liability of the same public officers even if
they are cleared by COA.
CRUZ vs. COA
HELD: COA made a determination that those employees of
the Sugar Regulatory Administration who were hired after
October 31, 1989, should not be allowed to receive the
Social Amelioration benefits. But there was absolutely no
basis for COA to make such distinction because the law as
well as the circular in the interpretation of the law did not
impose any such factor of alienation as to the period of
employment by the SRA employees.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNANCE (PCGG)
Laws creating PCGG are provided under EOs 1, 2, 14,
14-A
PCGG is merely a conservator of the assets and
properties placed under its custody
PCGG can never perform acts of ownership or dominion
over whatever property or asset they may have
sequestered
PCGG cannot vote upon sequestered shares of stock nor
elect the members of the board of the corporation being
sequestered
EO 1 mandates the PCGG to recover ill-gotten
wealth accumulated by the Marcoses, their immediate
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
families, relatives, subordinates, associates and cronies,
whether such properties found in the Philippines or
abroad. PCGG has the power to take over or place under
its control any property or office within its authority.
EO 2 empowers the PCGG to freeze all assets and
properties in the Philippines and prohibit any person from
transferring or concealing such property alleged to be ill-
gotten
E.O. 14 and E.O. 14-A mandate the PCGG to file and
prosecute all cases before the Sandiganbayan which has
the exclusive jurisdiction to try and hear cases of the
PCGG. And likewise, Section 5 of E.O. 14 as amended,
empowers the PCGG to grant immunity from criminal
prosecution of any person who testifies.
BASECO vs. PCGG (May 27, 1987)
HELD: Since the PCGG is not the owner of the sequestered
assets, it is not allowed to vote sequestered shares of stocks or
even elect members of the board of directors concerned.
Exceptions to this rule:
1. Takeover of a business belonging to the government but is
already in the private hands
2. Where the capitalization of the business comes from public
fund
NB: This ruling is reiterated in Republic vs. Cocofed (372
SCRA 463) and Republic vs. Sandiganbayan 402 SCRA
85)
REPUBLIC vs. COCOFED
HELD: COCOFED, as well as its leaders and officers are under
the jurisdiction of PCGG because of the public nature of the
coconut levy funds.
PCGG has the power under Section 5 of EO 14 to grant
immunity from criminal prosecution as well as immunity
from civil suit applying the provisions of the Civil Code
At present, the period for the PCGG to sequester has
already lapsed
PCGG has authority to recover only those assets alleged to
be ill-gotten or unlawfully acquired prior to February 25,
1986. After such date, the OMB has now the power to run
after this public officers or grafters who amassed or
accumulated ill-gotten wealth
REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (July 12, 1996)
FACTS: There was a sequestration order issued by a
representative of the PCGG, Atty. Ramirez. He issued a
sequestration order over the assets and properties of Dio
Island Resort in Leyte allegedly owned by the Romualdezes.
HELD: Upon authority of at least 2 commissioners of PCGG, a
writ of sequestration may be issued by a representative of the
PCGG. In this case, the writ of sequestration is null and void
since the issuance made by the representative of the PCGG did
not conform to the rules implementing the law. No ratification
by the PCGG can cure the defect.
REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (407 SCRA 13)
HELD: Where there is no jurisdiction to waive, as the PCGG
cannot exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers never
granted to it, Major General Ramas could not be deemed to
have waived any defect in the filing by the PCGG of the
forfeiture petition by filing an answer with counterclaim.
Ramas position as Commanding General of the Philippine Army
does not suffice to make him a subordinate of Marcos. It is
precisely a prima facie showing that the ill-gotten wealth was
accumulated by a "subordinate of Marcos that vests
jurisdiction on PCGG. Failing in this, the PCGG should have
recommended the instant case to the Ombudsman.
ARGANA vs. REPUBLIC (443 SCRA 184)
HELD: There is no law that requires that pleadings filed by
the PCGG be approved by the Commission en banc. So the
pleadings and/or motions that may be filed before the court
need not be approved by the Commission en banc or the
Office of the President.
Prepared by:
BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP)
BSP, through the Monetary Board, has the
authority, under the so called rule "close now and hear
later policy", to take over a bank and thus order that
such bank be placed under receivership
There is no violation for such closure because this is
in accord with public interest - the need to protect the
stockholders, the creditors and the public at large
This is consistent with the states police power
Prior notice and hearing not required for such
closure but subject to the following requisites:
1. Conduct of examination by the
examinations department of the BSP
2. On the basis of such examination, a report
be submitted to the Monetary Board
3. Such report shows prima facie finding that
continuance in business of such bank would involve
probable lost to the creditors/depositors
The bank is allowed to sue the Monetary Board
within 10 days from the date of closure
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR)
General rule: DAR has the original jurisdiction over
all cases involving the application of agrarian laws
Section 50 of RA 6657 (Agrarian Law) confers to the
DAR primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters, and exclusive original
jurisdiction over matters involving the implementation of
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
DAR, in the exercise of its exclusive original
jurisdiction, performs its mandate through agencies
1.) DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board);
2.) RARAB (Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board); and
3.) PARAB (Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board)
Instances where the DAR does not have original
jurisdiction:
1. Petition for determining just compensation
2. The case involves a criminal act arising
from a violation of the provisions of the RA 6657
(Agrarian Law)
Agrarian dispute refers any
controversy that relates to tenurial arrangement
Tenurial arrangement not only
includes tenancy but also leasehold, stewardship or
other kind of arrangement between the land owner and
the possessor, the cultivator of the land which is
devoted to agriculture, any matter or controversy
pertaining to the terms and conditions of the transfer of
ownership from the land owner to the tiller, farm
worker, or any beneficiary of the agrarian reform
Home lot is included in the term
agrarian dispute
Tenancy relationship is not simply
extinguished by the expiration of the period provided in
the leasehold contract, or even by the disposition, sale
or transfer of legal possession of the landholding
Determination of Just Compensation under CARP:
1. Section 50
administrative and preliminary in nature
applies where there is the taking of such property
under the agrarian reform program, and the offer to
be paid by the government is rejected
not similar to the proceeding before the court
the proceeding in court is not a continuation of the
admininstrative process before the DARAB
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009)
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001
Steps:
a. Offer given to the land owner
b. Land Bank makes an appraisal of
such property
c. Offer is given by DAR to the
landowners
d. If acceptable, no need for court
proceedings
e. If rejected, landowner may state his
objection and DAR may make a determination again
f. A summary proceeding is conducted
for preliminary determination by DARAB, RARAB or
PARAB
g. If landowner is still not satisfied, the
landowner may file a petition with the RTC 15 days
from receipt of decision
PHIL. VETERANS BANK (PVB) vs. CA (322 SCRA 140)
FACTS: PVB filed the petition for the determination of just
compensation beyond the 15-day period as required.
HELD: The petition must be filed within the 15-day period
from the receipt of the notice of the DAR in the summary
administrative proceeding conducted. The 15-day period to file
the petition for just compensation is mandatory.
2. Section 57
judicial in nature
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the court to
determine just compensation should there be
disagreement
LAGUNA ESTATE vs. CA (335 SCRA 38)
FACTS: Parcels of agricultural land in Laguna were placed
under CARP. But the only passageway to these parcels of land
is only through the privately-owned road of Laguna Estate.
DAR argued that it has the authority to hear and decide the
issue of granting an easement.
HELD: DARAB has no power to grant to the beneficiaries a
right of way (easement) over a private property. For the
DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there must be
tenancy relationship between the parties in the first place. In
this case, no such relationship exists.
Requirements of existence of tenancy relationship:
1. Parties are tenant and landowner
2. Subject matter of controversy is an agricultural land
3. Consent given by the landowner to occupation, possession,
cultivation of the so called tenant
4. Distribution of proceeds or sharing of harvests between
tenant and land owner
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION
(PAGCOR)
Two-fold nature of PAGCOR
1. Governmental agency mandated to regulate and
centralize all forms of gambling as authorized by law,
or mind existing franchise
2. Proprietary in character
Gambling is not illegal because nowhere can
you find it under our laws, not even under the Constitution
that gambling is prohibited
Morality of gambling is not a judicial issue
Under the Constitution, positions in PAGCOR
previously exempted from the Civil Service Law are not
anymore exempted
BASCO vs. PAGCOR (May 14, 1991)
HELD: PAGCOR was created by virtue of PD 1067, as
amended by PD 1869, to regulate and centralize all games
authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law. It is
allowed to establish, operate and maintain gambling casinos on
lands and water within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines. It is a reliable source of much needed revenue fort
Prepared by:
he cash-strapped Government. It provided funds for social
impact projects and subjected gambling to close scrutiny,
regulation, supervision and control of the government.
Public welfare lies at the bottom of the enacted of the PD
1869.
DELMAR vs. PAGCOR (346 SCRA 435)
FACTS: PAGCOR entered into an agreement with private
companies to operate jai-alai. The legality of such
agreement was questioned on the ground that PAGCOR does
not have any authority to enter into such kind of agreement.
HELD: The charter (PD 1869) of PAGCOR does not give it a
franchise to operate and manage jai-alai. The nature of a
franchise is a special privilege conferred by the State. There
was no clear authority given to PAGCOR for the operation of
jai-alai. The business of PAGCOR is to establish, maintain
and operate gambilng casinos in any part of the country, and
this does not include jai alai activities.
The matter of giving franchise to operate jai-alai was
not intended for PAGCOR but to a different corporation (Phil
Jai-alai and Amusement Corp) pursuant to PD 810 of
October 16, 1975. PAGCOR is engaged in business affected
with public interest. A legislative franchise to operate jai-alai
is imbued with public interest and involves the exercise of
police power.
JAWORSKI vs. PAGCOR (419 SCRA 317)
FACTS: Jaworski questioned the authority of PAGCOR to
allow the Sports and Games Entertainment Corp. to operate
internet gambling.
HELD: PAGCOR exceed its authority since when PAGCOR
was created, there was no such thing as internet. And
gambling at that time was solely done through real stakes.
The law never envisioned the grant of authority to operate
online gambling to Pagcor for it to grant to another. Again,
same reason of the franchise.
LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (LTO) and
LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND
REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB)
LTO and LTFRB are under the supervision of DOTC
LTO has the duty to register vehicles and licensing
of drivers
LTFRB is tasked for the regulation of public utility
for-hire vehicles and the grant of franchises or
certificates of public convenience
LGUs regulate the operation of tricycles-for-hire
and grant of franchises for the operation thereof,
subject to the guidelines issued by DOTC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (4th Year : 2008-2009) Prepared by:
Jazzie M. Sarona
Sources & References: Lectures of Atty. Elman (as transcribed by Hanniyah Sevilla), Lakas Atenista Admin Transcription 2007, UP Bar Ops 2001

Excellence is not a destination. Its the journey.

Its not about what we do but how we do it