Syllabus

Administrative Law

I. General Principles
a. Administrative Law
i. Definition
ii. Kinds
1. Statutes setting up administrative authorities
2. Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative
authorities promulgated pursuant to the purposes for
which they are created
3. Determinations, decisions, and orders of such
administrative authorities made in the settlement of
controversies arising in their particular fields
4. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the
creation, operation and effect of determinations and
regulations of such administrative authorities
iii. Administration
1. Meaning
 as to function
 as to organization
2. Distinguished from government
3. Kinds
 Internal
 External
b. Administrative Bodies or Agencies
i. Definition
ii. Creation
1. Constitutional provision
2. Legislative Enactment
3. Authority of law
iii. Criterion
1. as opposed to its quasi-judicial function
2. relating to its rule-making authority
iv. Types
1. Bodies set up to function in situations where the
government is offering some gratuity, grant or
special privilege, e.g., Bureau of Lands
2. Bodies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is seeking to carry on certain of the
actual business of the government, e.g., BIR
3. Bodies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is performing some business service for
the public, e.g., MWSS
 4. Bodies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is seeking to regulate business affected
with public interest, e.g., LTFRB
5. Bodies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is seeking under the police power to
regulate private business and individuals, e.g., SEC
6. Bodies set up to function in situations wherein the
government is seeking to adjust individual
controversies because of a strong social policy
involved, e.g., ECC
7. Bodies set up to make the government a private
party, e.g., GSIS
II. Powers of Administrative Bodies
a. Power of Administrative Bodies
i. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power
ii. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power
iii. Determinative power
b. Quasi-legislative power
i. Nature
 Holy Spirit Homeowners Association v
Secretary Defensor, G.R. No. 163980, August
3, 2006
 Philippine Association of Service Exporters v
Torres 225 SCRA 417
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Court of
Appeals, 240 SCRA 368
 Eastern Shipping Lines v Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 116356, June 29, 1998
 Ople v Torres, 293 SCRA 141
ii. Kinds of Administrative Rules or Regulation
1. Supplementary or detailed legislation
 Bureau of Food and Drugs (FDA) v Drugmakers
Laboratory, Inc. G.R. No. 190837, March 5,
2014
2. Interpretative legislation
 Gonzales v Land Bank, 183 SCRA 520
 Manila Jockey Club v Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
103533, December 15, 1998
3. Contingent legislation
 Cruz v Youngberg, 56 Phil 234
iii. Requisites of validity
1. Issued under authority of law
 Olsen v Aldanese, 43 Phil 64
 Department of Health v Philip Morris
Philippines Manufacturing, G.R. No. 202943,
March 25, 2015
  SM Land, Inc. v. Bases Conversion
Development Authority (BCDA), G.R. No.
203655, March 18, 2015
2. Within the scope and purview of the law
 Public Schools District Supervisors Association
v. Hon. Edilberto de Jesus, G.R. No. 157299,
June 19, 2006
 Land Bank v. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 149
 Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co. v. Drilon, 176
SCRA 24
 Luis Lokin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179431, June
22, 2010
 Romulo Mabanta Law Office v. Home
Development Mutual Fund, G.R. No. 131082,
June 19, 2000
3. Reasonable
 Lupangco v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 848
4. Publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper
of general circulation, as provided in Executive Order
No. 200.
 Tañada v Tuvera 146 SCRA 446
 National Power Corporation v. Pinatubo
Commercial, G.R. no. 176006, March 26, 2010
 De Jesus v. Commission on Audit G.R. No.
109023, August 12, 1998
 Philippine Association of Service Exporters v
Torres, 212 SCRA 298
 Transaction Overseas Corporation v. Secretary
of Labor, G.R. No. 109583
iv. Administrative rules with penal sanctions; additional
requisites:
1. The law must itself declare as punishable the
violation of the administrative rule or regulation
 People v. Macaren, 79 SCRA 450
2. The law should define or fix the penalty for the
violation of the administrative rule or regulation
v. Necessity for notice and hearing
 Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of
the Philippines, G.R. no. 111953, December 12,
1997
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of
Appeals, 261 SCRA 236
 Philippine Consumers Foundation v. Secretary,
DECS, 153 SCRA 622
 Lina v Carino, 221 SCRA 515
  Maceda v. Energy Regulatory Board, 192 SCRA
363
c. Determinative Powers
i. Enabling
ii. Directing
iii. Dispensing
iv. Examining
 Guevarra v. COMELEC, 104 Phil 268
 Magsangcay v. COMELEC, 6 SCRA 27
 Carino v. Commission on Human Rights, 204
SCRA 483
v. Summary
d. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power
i. Character of the proceedings
1. Sec. 5 (5), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
ii. Administrative due process
1. Requisites
 Ang Tibay v. CIR, 40 O.G. 7th Supp. 129
a) Right to a hearing
b) Tribunal must consider evidence
presented
c) Decision must have somethingto
support itself
d) Evidence must be substantial
e) Decision must be based on the
evidence adduced at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties
f) The Board or its judges must act on its
or their independent consideration of
the facts and the law of the case, and
not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision
g) Decision must be rendered in such a
manner that the parties to the
controversy can know the various
issues involved and the reasons for the
decision rendered
2. Cases
 SPO1 Leonito Acuzar v. Aproniano Jorolan, G.R.
No. 177878, April 7, 2010
 Ute Paterok v. Bureau of Customs, 193 SCRA
132
 Lumiqued v. Exenea, G.R. No. 117565,
November 18, 1997
  Gonzales v. NLRC and Ateneo de Davao
University, G.R. No. 125735, August 26, 1999
 Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No.
114683, January 18, 2000
3. Administrative determinations where notice and
hearing are not necessary for due process
 RCPI v. National Telecommunications
Commission, 184 SCRA 517
4. Right against self-incrimination
 Cabal v Kapunan, 6 SCRA 1064
 Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28
SCRA 345
5. Power to punish contempt
 Dumarpa v. Dimaporo, 177 SCRA 478
6. Administrative decisions not part of the legal system
 Philippine Bank of Communications v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
112024, January 28, 1999
7. Administrative Appeal and Review
 Araneta v. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil 328
8. Doctrine of res judicata
 Ysmael v. Deputy Executive Secretary, 190
SCRA 673
 B.F. Goodrich Philippines v. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission, 1988
9. Reconciliation of the parties or desistance by the
complainant
 Carlito Encinas v. PO1 Alfredo Agustin, G.R. No.
187317, April 11, 2013
III. Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies
a. Doctrine
 Aquino v. Mariano, 129 SCRA 532
 Lopez v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 127139,
b. Corollary Principles
i. Doctrine of Prior Resort (Doctrine of Primary Administrative
Jurisdiction)
 University of Sto. Tomas v. Danes Sanchez,
G.R. no. 165569, July 29, 2010
ii. Doctrine of finality of administrative action
 Zabat v Court of Appeals, 338 SCRA 551
c. Effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies
 Soto v. Jareno, 144 SCRA 116
d. Exceptions to the doctrine
i. Doctrine of qualified political agency (alter ego doctrine)
 Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 589
 ii. Where the administrative remedy is fruitless, e.g.,
prescription
iii. Where there is estoppel on the part of the administrative
agency
 Vda De Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission,
105 Phil 377
iv. Where the issue involved is purely a legal question
 Castro v. Secretary Gloria, G.R. No. 132174,
August 20, 2001
v. Where the administrative action is patently illegal,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
 Cabada v. Alunan, 260 SCRA 838
vi. When there is unreasonable delay or official inaction
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438
vii. Where there is irreparable injury or threat thereof, unless
judicial recourse is immediately made
 National Food Authority v. Court of Appeals,
253 SCRA 470
viii. In land cases, where the subject matter is private land
ix. Where the law does not make exhaustion a condition
precedent to judicial recourse, or where no administrative
review is provided by law
 Mark James Maglalang v. PAGCOR, G.R. No.
190566, December 11, 2013
x. Where observance of the doctrine will result in the
nullification of the claim
xi. Where there are special reasons or circumstances
demanding immediate court action
 Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127876,
December 17, 1999
xii. When due process of law is clearly violated
 Pagara v. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 606
xiii. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy
 Estuerte v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 541
 Information Technology Foundation of the
Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139,
January 13, 2004
IV. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
a. Rule
i. Sec 1, par. 2, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution
b. Bases for Judicial Review
i. Constitution
ii. Statutes
iii. General principles of law
  San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor,
G.R. no. L-39195, May 16, 1975
 Continental Marble v. NLRC, 161 SCRA 151
 Unicraft Industries International v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. no. 134903, March 23, 2001
c. Methods of Obtaining Judicial Review
i. Statutory or non-statutory
ii. Direct or collateral
d. What court has jurisdiction
 Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan
Electric Power and Light, G.R. No. 127371, April
25, 2002
 St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC and Aricayos,
G. R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998
e. Questions which may be subject of judicial review
i. Question of Law
ii. Question of Facts
iii. Mixed Question of Law and Facts (Brandeis Doctrine of
Assimilation of Facts)
f. Guidelines for the exercise of the power
i. Findings of fact are respected as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence, even if not
overwhelming or preponderant
 Artuz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142444,
September 17, 2001
 Ruben Reyna v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
157219, February 8, 2011
 Arboleda v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119509, February
11, 1999
ii. It is not the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting
evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or
otherwise substitute its judgement for that of the
administrative agency on the sufficiency of evidence
 Mollaneda v. Umacob, G.R. No. 140128,
June 6, 2001
 Office of the Ombudsman v. Antonio Reyes,
G.R. No. 170512, October 5, 2011
iii. The administrative decision in matters within the
executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of grave
abuse of discretion, fraud, collusion or error of law
 Atlas Consolidated v. Factoran, 154 SCRA
49
 Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, G.R.
No. 137473, August 2, 2001
g. Judicial Review is not trial de novo