Admin concept and procedure

INTRODUCTION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW is that branch of public law which
fixes the organization of the government and determines
the competence of administrative authorities who execute
the law and makes available to the individual relief against
administrative action.
It is also that branch of public law dealing with the
doctrines and principles governing the powers and
procedures of administrative agencies including especially
judicial review of administrative action.

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY refers to any
governmental authority other than a court or
legislative body performing rule-making or
adjudicatory functions.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW vs.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW prescribes the permanent framework of the
system of government and supplies the general plan of governmental
organization; whereasADMINISTRATIVE LAW carries into effect the
general plan of governmental organization as prescribed by the
Constitution.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW prescribes the limitations on the exercise
of governmental powers so as to protect the rights of individuals
against abuse of such powers; whereas ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
provides for the relief to the individuals should there be violations of
their rights by official government action.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW stresses on the rights of citizens; whereas
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW gives stress on their duties to the
government.

ADMINISTRATIVE BODY VS. COURT
1. An ADMINISTRATIVE BODY is composed of persons or
individuals who are considered experts in their particular fields;
whereas a COURT is a tribunal manned by persons who are
learned in the field of law, imparted and removed from the passing
pressure of politics.
1. An ADMINISTRATIVE BODY has variety of functions; whereas a
COURT has only judicial function.
1. An ADMINISTRATIVE BODY is given a wider discretion in the
exercise of its power since it is not bound by the rigid technicalities
as prescribed upon a court; whereas a COURT has to observe the
principles and rules embodied in the Rules of Court.

TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
BODY/AGENCY IS ADMINISTRATIVE OR
JUDICIAL
Administrative → if its function is primarily
regulatory even if it conducts hearings and
determines controversy to carry out its regulatory
duty.
Judicial → if its primary duty is to decide legal
rights between private parties affecting their
property or liberty.

Administrative Law
• The purpose of Administrative Law is the protection of the rights
of the individuals.
• Its subject matter is the nature and mode of powers exercised by
administrative bodies and their officers.
• It has for its basic functions the effective and efficient operation of
the government machinery.
• It originated from legislation and from the recognition of the
legislature that it cannot, on its own, cope with the various
activities of men as they become more progressive. Thus, having
realized that the legislature and the courts cannot adequately
answer the needs of its citizens, the government created a
mechanism, an administrative agency or body, to cater the needs
of the individuals. For such reason, administrative agencies are
also called the 4th branch of the government.

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.

KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
1.) Laws or statutes creating or setting up authorities and
providing for their powers;
2.) by reason of such creation, these administrative authorities
are empowered in the exercise of their quasi-judicial therefore
decisions of these administrative authorities likewise become part
of administrative law or where such decision is brought before the
court, thus, you have the decisions of the courts pertaining to or
issues on the creation or operation of administrative authorities;
and
3.) Since administrative authorities are generally given the power
to issue rules and regulations, thus, they promulgate from time to
time rules and regulations and this again constitute part of
administrative law.

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES (GRP) VS. NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to the
corporate government entity through which the functions of the
government throughout the Philippines, including, save as the
contrary appears from the context, the various arms through
which the political authority is made effective in the Philippines,
whether pertaining to the central government or to the
provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other
forms of local government.” (Sec 2(1) AC 1987)
On the other hand, 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.

SOURCES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
1. Constitutional or statutory enactments creating administrative
bodies.
1. Decisions of courts interpreting the charters of administrative
bodies and defining their powers, rights, inhibitions, among others,
and the effects of their determinations and regulations.
1. Rules and regulations issued by the administrative bodies in
pursuance of the purposes for which they were created.
1. Determinations and orders of the administrative bodies in the
settlement of controversies arising in their respective fields.

AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT
The Agency of the government refers to any of the units/bodies of the
government. This would include a bureau, an office, a department or
even an instrumentality.
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT
The Instrumentality of the government refers to the agency of the
national government which is not integrated within the national
department framework although it may be performing corporate as well
as governmental functions. The fact that the instrumentality is
empowered to exercise corporate functions does not automatically mean
that it is already a government corporation. If the instrumentality
possesses corporate powers it does not mean automatically that it is a
government corporation because the instrumentality of the government
may, by law, be given special functions and still not possessed of a
corporate personality.

Some incorporated agencies not included in the term
“Government of the Republic of the Philippines”:
• National Power Corporation
• Philippine Ports Authority
• Philippine National Railways
• Public Estates Authority
• National Housing Authority
• Philippine National Oil Company

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION

Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot
and will not determine a controversy involving a question
which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal,
especially where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience and services of the administrative
tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact
and where a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with
the purposes of the regulatory statute which is to be
administered.

The doctrine applies where a claim is originally
cognizable in courts, and comes into play whenever
enforcement of a claim requires the resolution of
issues which, under a regulatory scheme have been
placed within the special competence of an
administrative body; in such case, the judicial process
is suspended pending referral of such issues to the
administrative body for its view.

It applies when there is concurrence of authority
between the court and administrative tribunal.
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.

The doctrine does not apply when there is
concurrence of authorities between two
administrative tribunals. Example: you have a
complaint for a barangay captain, where will you
file? Sangunian or Ombudsman. It is a case
applying the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is not
applicable in this situation. It also does not apply
when the law itself may provide.

The purpose of the doctrine is not only to
give the administrative agency the
opportunity to decide the controversy by
itself correctly, but also to prevent
unnecessary and premature resort to
courts.

POWERS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

Generally, administrative bodies can only exercise those
powers which are either conferred by the Constitution or
statute or those which are necessarily implied from their
exercise.
Administrative bodies commonly exercise 2 basic
powers:
quasi judicial or adjudicatory power → enables them to
interpret and apply such regulations
quasi-legislative or rule-making power → enables them
to promulgate implementing rules and regulations.

A. QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
This is the administrative body’s power of
adjudication. Quasi-judicial power is the power of the
administrative authorities to make determinations of
facts in the performance of their official duties and to
apply the law as they construe it to the facts so found.
The exercise of this power is only incidental to their
main function, which is the enforcement of the law.

The quasi-judicial power, which is incidental to the
power of regulation vested in the administrative
body, is often expressly conferred by the
legislature through specific provisions in the
charter of the agency. The justification for the
grant as against the contention that it violates the
doctrine of separation of power is that the power
is needed to enable the administrative officers to
perform their executive duties.

Procedural due process should be complied with in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial powers. It requires prior notice
and hearing. For an administrative body to be considered
and to act as quasi-judicial, there must be an express
empowerment by law. Absent express empowerment,
jurisdiction should be construed to mean mere regulatory
and supervisory, not judicial powers. Adjudicative power
must always be read and exercised as being in aid of the
principal function of an administrative body.

• In other words, the grant of quasi-judicial power should
not be only power conferred but should instead be only
incidental to the administrative agency’s main task of
implementing the law in the specific fields of its
expertise. Otherwise, the agency becomes a specialized
court of justice under the judicial branch.
• Discretion of the administrative tribunal in
gathering and ascertaining evidence.
• Determining the facts of the case on the basis of
the evidence gathered.
• Application of the law itself on the facts so
gathered.

Conditions for the Exercise of Administrative
body’s Quasi-judicial Power
1. The administrative body must properly acquire
jurisdiction.
1. Due Process must be observed in the conduct
of the proceedings.

Rule against Forum Shopping
• The rule against forum shopping applies to
quasi-judicial/administrative proceedings. Before
an administrative complaint may be lodged in
any administrative tribunal, the following
requirements must first be complied:
• The complaint must be under oath (verified)
• There must be certification that no similar
complaint is filed in any other tribunal.

Forum shopping – is the act of filing multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of
obtaining a favorable judgment.
It is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment
has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (other
than by appeal or by a special civil action for certiorari) or
of instituting two or more actions or proceedings grounded
on the same cause on the supposition that one or the
other would make a favorable disposition.

Res Judicata
It is not only identity of the parties but also identity of the
rights being asserted founded on the same facts.
The requisites of res judicata are:
1. identity of parties,
2. identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts, and
3. the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that
any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless
of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
action under consideration.

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
3. When the law allows separate independent
civil action
4. Law allows two different actions (criminal
and administrative in nature)

B. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER
Congress may validly delegate to administrative
agencies the authority to promulgate rules and
regulations in order to implement a given
legislation and effectuate its policies. The power
of administrative agencies to promulgate rules in
the implementation of a statute is necessarily
limited to what is provided for in the legislative
enactment.

In order to be valid, the rules and regulations:
1. 1) must be germane to the objects and
purposes of the statute;
2. must conform to the standards that the law
prescribes; and
3. must relate solely to carrying into effect the
general provisions of the law.

Legislative Power
Power to make laws and
the power to fix a
legislative policy
Cannot be delegated by
legislature to administrative
agencies
Quasi-legislative Power
Power of administrative
agencies to issue
administrative rules and
regulations in order to
implement the law and the
legislative policy fixed by
the legislature
Power of subordinate
legislation

Requisites for a valid delegation
1. The law must be complete in itself; it must set
forth a policy to be executed (Completeness
test)
1. The law 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 (Sufficient
Standard Test)

Requisites for the validity of
Administrative Regulations:
1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the
legislature.
1. It must be within the scope of the authority given
by the legislature.
1. It must be promulgated m accordance with the
prescribed procedure.
1. It must be reasonable.

KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
AND REGULATIONS
1. Supplementary or detailed legislation – these are rules
and regulations intended to fill in the details of legislation
2. Interpretative legislation – these are rules and regulations
construing or interpreting the provisions of a statute to be
enforced and they are binding on all concerned until they are
changed.
3. Contingent legislation – these are rules and regulations
made by an administrative authority in order to determine a
certain state of facts or things upon which the enforcement of
the law is made to depend.

Fiscal Autonomy
Fiscal autonomy is the autonomy given to certain
administrative bodies to have freedom from control and
limitations except those provided by law.
Only few administrative bodies are granted fiscal
autonomy. They are the following:
1. Judiciary
2. the 3 constitutional commissions
3. Ombudsman

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

Other Powers of Administrative
Agencies

Discretionary and Ministerial
• Discretionary power is the power of administrative
agencies to act officially on certain cases referred to
them according to the dictates of their own judgment and
conscience and not controlled by the judgment or
conscience of others. This cannot be compelled by
mandamus.
• Ministerial power is the power of administrative agencies
in the discharge of the officer’s function which is
imperative and requires neither judgment nor discretion
on his part. This can be compelled by mandamus.

INVESTIGATORY OR INQUISITORIAL
POWERS
• Investigatory or inquisitorial power, also known as the
examining power, refers to the authority of the administrative
agency to gather evidence. This consists in requiring the
disclosure of information by means accounts, records or
documents through the issuance of subpoena or subpoena
duces tecum, the attendance of witnesses and compelling
their testimonies and the filing of statements.
• This power must be conferred by law. This is the power to
gather information and even inspect in the premises and to
call on witnesses and issue subpoenas but which in the latter
case, is a power that must be conferred upon the
administrative officer. The power to investigate and inquire
carries with it the power to issue subpoena.

POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENA
The power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
is not inherent in administrative bodies. It is settled that
these bodies may summon witness and require the
production of evidence only when: (a) duly allowed by law,
and (b) always only in connection with the matter they are
authorized to investigate. The fact that an administrative
body has been authorized to conduct an investigation
does not necessarily mean it can also summon witnesses
and take testimony in the absence of a clear grant of this
power from the legislature.

• Under the Administrative Code of 1987 (Sec. 13, Book VII of
EO 292), administrative and quasi-judicial bodies shall have
the power in any contested case to require the attendance
of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents
and other pertinent data, upon request of any party before
or during the hearing upon showing of general relevance.
• 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

Distinguish administrative subpoena from
judicial subpoena
The purpose of administrative subpoena is not to
prove a pending charge but to discover evidence
on the basis of which a charge may be filed if the
evidence so justifies. On the other hand, the
purpose of a judicial subpoena is to prove in
evidence a charge.

POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT
• Like the subpoena power, the power to punish for contempt is
essentially judicial and cannot be claimed as an inherent right
by the administrative body. The power to punish for contempt
should be clearly defined and granted by law and its penalty
determined. In the absence of such provision of law,
administrative bodies do not possess inherent power to
contempt.
• EO 292 provides that unless otherwise provide by law, the
agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the
Regional Trail Court within whose jurisdiction the contested
case being heard falls. The Court may punish refusal as
contempt (Sec. 13, Chapter 3, Bk VII).

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 not the
administrative tribunal but the court. The interpretation
made by the administrative agency is merely persuasive

VALIDITY OF IMPLEMENTING RULES
OR INTERPRETATIVE POLICIES
• Administrative bodies, corollary to their obligation to
enforce the law, must perforce have the competence to
interpret, at first instance, the meaning of the laws that
they are to execute. Such interpretations are however
not binding upon the courts but carry persuasive weight.
When an administrative agency renders an opinion or
issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-
existing law and the administrative interpretation is at
best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine
what the law means.

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

Requisites for the validity of Administrative
Rules and Regulations
1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature.
It is usually conferred by the charter of the
administrative agency or by the law it is supposed to
enforce.
2. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the
legislature. The regulation promulgated must not be
ultra vires or beyond the limits of the authority
conferred.
3. It must be promulgated in accordance with the
prescribed procedure.

The following, however, need not be
published:
1. Interpretative rules and regulations
2. Those which are merely internal in nature
(regulating only the personnel of the
administrative agency and not the public)
3. Letter of instruction issued by administrative
superiors concerning the rules and guidelines
to be followed by their subordinates in the
performance of their duties.

Proceedings before Administrative Bodies
• An administrative body has the power or authority to
promulgate its own rules of procedure in order for it to carry out
its objective, which the law has conferred upon its creation.
The rules and regulations promulgated by these administrative
bodies must be liberally construed to promote justice, to effect
promptness in the disposition of cases and to obtain just,
speedy and inexpensive determination of cases.
• Proceedings before administrative bodies partake the nature of
a judicial proceeding as it involves the taking of evidence and
of evaluation of the same; facts are determined based upon the
evidence presented, and their decision and orders are based
on such facts.

In other words proceedings before administrative bodies require the
determination of facts just like in judicial proceeding. The quasi-
judicial officer is required to ascertain the applicable laws upon the
determination of the facts of the case.
However, unlike in a judicial proceeding, the administrative
authorities are not strictly bound by the rigid technicalities observed
in courts. The administrative authorities can interpret their own rules
and may even dispense with any particular rule and in so doing,
they have a wider degree of discretion. So long as they are guided
by the principle of justice and fair play and that there is no
arbitrariness in the conduct of the proceeding, there can be no
question in the procedure observed by the administrative officer.

Due Process
• 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 is
fair, reasonable and just.
• Procedural due process – refers to the method,
the manner by which the law is enforced or
implemented.

Requirements of Administrative Due
Process
• The case must be tried by an impartial tribunal;
• There must be due notice and hearing or
opportunity to be heard;
• The procedure at the hearing must be consistent
with the essentials of a fair trial;
• Proceedings must be conducted in such a way
that there will be opportunity for a court to
determine whether the applicable rules of law
and procedure were observed.

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 respondent’s legal rights;
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance
of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to
defend one’s 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.

Exception to the Magna Carta Law:
estoppels by laches

Emin v. de Leon
[378 S 143, February 27, 2002]
FACTS: Some teachers in Kidapawan were
found to have forged their certificates of
eligibility. When questioned, they all pointed
petitioner Emin, a Non- Formal Education
Supervisor, as the person who gave them the
RA 6850 certificates of eligibility they had
attached to their appointment for fee. Petitioner
was formerly charged with the CSC.

ISSUE #1: Whether or not the CSC has original jurisdiction
over the case against petitioner?
HELD: CSC has no jurisdiction. Under RA 4670 or the Magna
Carta for Public School Teachers, original jurisdiction over
admin cases against public school teachers should be lodged
before an investigating committee.
However, the proceedings conducted can no longer be
nullified on procedural grounds because of the principle of
estoppel by laches. It was shown that the CSC had afforded
petitioners sufficient opportunity to be heard and defend
himself against the charges against him. He even participated
in the hearings.

ISSUE #2: Whether or not petitioner was denied of
the process?
HELD: No. He avers that he was not allowed to cross-
examine. But in admin proceedings, technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. He did
not even ask for cross-examination during the hearing.
What is important is that petitioner was given sufficient
opportunity to be heard and defend himself.

Alcala et. al. v. Villar
[416 S 147, November 18, 2003]
FACTS: Respondent Villar is the School Principal of Lanao
National High School, Pilar, Cebu City. Petitioners, as
teachers of said school, filed a complaint for dishonesty
against respondent; that he gave complainants
reimbursements and loyalty benefits which are less than
what they are entitled. Respondent contends that he was
authorized by complainants to deduct said benefits and pay
to E & E Lending Investors.
The case was investigated and resolved by the Office of the
Ombudsman finding Villar guilty of dishonesty and dismissed
him from service.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction?

HELD: No, Under RA 4670, it must be lodged first before
an investigating committee. But the decision of
Ombudsman should not be annulled because petitioner
was amply afforded due process, the essence of which is
an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to
seek reconsideration of the action.
In this case, respondents had filed a counter–affidavit
and a motion for reconsideration; he also participated in
the hearing before the Ombudsman and was given
opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him.
Hence Villar, can no longer question the proceeding
under the principle of estoppel by laches.

Cardinal Primary Rights in Administrative
Proceedings
ANG TIBAY CASE

There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in
proceedings of this character:
1.The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s
case and submit evidence in support thereof;
2.The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3.The decision must have something to support itself;
4.The evidence on which the decision is based must be substantial;
5.The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record disclosed to the parties
affected;
6.The board or its judges must act on its or their own independent
consideration of the law and the fact of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of the subordinate in arriving at a decision;
and
7.The decision must be rendered in such a manner that the parties
to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the
reason for the decision rendered.

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
4.Cancellation of a passport
5.The law itself authorizes the
administrative tribunal to grant
provisional increase of rates

Time for Rendering Administrative
Decisions
• As a general rule, the law itself provides
for the time frame within which the agency
must terminate and must issue a
resolution. The period is only directory.

Administrative Appeals and Review
• The right to appeal is not a natural right. It can only
be exercised within the provisions of the law. Unless
otherwise provided by law or executive order, relief
from administrative determination may be had by
filing a motion for reconsideration or by asking a
review of the same by the superior authorities,
whose decision may further be brought to the
regular courts of justice, in accordance with the
procedure specified by the law.

Right against Self-Incrimination
The right against self-incrimination is available in all kinds of
proceedings, whether civil, criminal or administrative. But such right is
available only to natural persons and not to a juridical person.
Thus, an administrative agency may require an organization
(corporation, partnership or association) to furnish it with records of
books although these may incriminate such an organization. The
reason for the exclusion of juridical persons from the no self-
incrimination rule is the need for administrative bodies tasked by
legislature to ensure the compliance with law and public policy.
Generally, when the law requires that certain records be kept, these
records are withdrawn from the protective mantle of the no self-
incrimination clause (Shapiro doctrine).

EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
lays down the rule that where the law provides for
remedies against the action of an administrative board,
body or officer, relief to the courts against such action can
be sought only after exhausting all the remedies provided
for.
This doctrine applies only when there is a law authorizing
the taking of a particular step or remedy. If there is no law
prescribing for this procedure, there is no need for
exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, judicial
relief may be immediately sought.

A case filed without first exhausting administrative remedies may
be dismissed outright and the court may refer the case to the
appropriate administrative agency.
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not jurisdictional. A
petition to exhaust administrative remedies may affect the cause
of action but not the jurisdiction of the court. The rule which
provides that administrative remedies must first be exhausted
merely implies the absence of a cause of action and does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court either over the parties, if they
have been summoned properly, or over the subject matter of the
case.

3 reasons for the doctrine:
1. In order to give administrative body the opportunity to
correct or rectify whatever error(s) it may have
committed in the discharge of its functions;
2. To prevent premature or unnecessary resort to courts;
3. The law itself gives competence or expertise to
administrative tribunals to carry out the mandate to
them by law. (consistent with the doctrine of separation
of powers)

Doctrine of exhaustion of
admin remedies
• If a law provides for a
remedy or relief against an
administrative action, the
court is not the proper body
to decide on the matter until
all administrative remedies
has been exhausted.
• Applies when the claim is
originally cognizable by an
administrative tribunal
Doctrine of primary
jurisdiction
• The court cannot and will not
take cognizance of an action
brought before it if such
requires the knowledge and
expertise of an administrative
agency.
• Applies when the claim is
within the concurrent
jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal and the courts

• Both deals with the proper relationship
between courts and administrative bodies.
• Both principles do not apply where the
issue involved is a pure question of law.

Application of Doctrine of EAR
1. 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
2. If MFR is still adverse to the party, appeal shall be taken to
the superior officer, not before the courts
3. 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]
4. 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
5. 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

Exceptions to the Doctrine of
Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies

APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY OR
THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE
This doctrine means that when the respondent is a
department secretary who acts as an alter ego of the
President, it bears the implied or assumed approval of the
latter. Under this doctrine, the acts of the Department
Secretary acting as agents or alter egos of the President
are considered the acts of the President himself unless the
President has disapproved the official act made by the
Department Secretary or when the president is required to
act personally on the matter.

WHEN THE ISSUE IS PURELY LEGAL
It is only the court which has the power to rule
with finality such legal issue. If the petition stated
that the decision of the administrative officer is
contrary to law and jurisprudence, then what is
being raised here is purely a question of law and
this is not within the competence of the
administrative officer.

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

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.

WHERE THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES WILL ONLY
CAUSE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE OR INJURY TO
ANY OF 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.

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

Where the amount is too insignificant and there is delay
by the administrative tribunal

WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IS
IN ESTOPPEL
If in the course of the proceeding before the administrative
agency there is representation made by the administrative
officer that it is only an action before the court that can
resolve the issue and on the basis of this declaration, such
court action was taken, the administrative agency is
already in estoppel to state that the matter ought to be
decided within the administrative level.

IF THERE IS NO TIMELY INVOCATION
OF THIS DOCTRINE

IF THE EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES WILL ONLY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS
FACTS: School Principal Sabello was found guilty in a criminal case. He
was reinstated because there was an absolute pardon given to him. But he
was reinstated as a mere classroom teacher. He did not file his appeal with
the DECS, but went directly to the court. Saying poverty denied him the
services of the lawyer.
HELD: The case was allowed to continue. The rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies and the application of the exceptions is not a fast
and rigid rule.
In the case of Sabello, the Court granted the petition of the petitioner.
Sabello claimed that poverty denied him the services of a lawyer. On that
basis, the Court set aside this requirement of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and looked into the merits of the case and so, he was reinstated to
the position of school principal.
In this situation, where the interest of justice requires, the Court rules that
there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies because poverty
deprived the petitioner access to lawyers.

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.
• It does not apply where the subject of controversy
involves a private property. In such situation, the body
that has the power to take cognizance of the matter is
the regular court.

WHERE THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IS
CLEARLY DEVOID OF AUTHORITY OR IS PATENTLY ILLEGAL
OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
We know that in the conduct of administrative
investigation, there must be observance of procedural due
process. One requirement is the need for the service of
summons. Supposing there was no service of summons
and the decision was rendered and this was the subject of
a case filed before the court.

WHERE THE DOCTRINE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A PLAIN,
SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY OR WHERE THERE IS NO
PLAIN ADEQUATE AND SPEEDY REMEDY EXCEPT COURT
ACTION
• Example: In the matter of the collection of small amount
and you are being passed from one office to another.
The matter is pending before the administrative agency,
and even notwithstanding several follow ups, no action
has been taken on the matter. So, the action may
immediately be filed before the court.

IF FURTHER PENDENCY OF THE CASE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WILL ONLY DELAY THE
PROCEEDINGS AND THUS YOU ARE DEPRIVED OF YOUR
RIGHT TO FILE AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT
• Example: An action involving a contest over public office
(quo warranto) and the same must be filed within 1year.
Supposing you are already on the 11th month and the
administrative agency has not yet acted on the matter.
To wait further would only cause further delay and
prejudice to the party and thus he will be deprived of his
right to file an action for quo warranto within the
prescribed period of 1year. So there is no need to
exhaust administrative remedies.

FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FROM
WHOM RELIEF IS SOUGHT TO ACT PROMPTLY AND
EXPEDITIOUSLY

WHEN THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO BE
DONE EXCEPT TO SEEK COURT ACTION

WHEN THE ISSUE OF NON-
EXHAUSTION HAS BEEN RENDERED
MOOT AND ACADEMIC

WHERE THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES
INDICATING THE URGENCY OF
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

POWER OF SUPERVISION
AND CONTROL

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND
REVIEW
• When provided by law, appeal from an
administrative determination may be made to a
higher or superior administrative officer or body.
(Basis: Power of Control).

REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS BY THE COURTS
• 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

QUESTIONS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT
OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
1. Questions of Law involves the constitutionality
of law, treaty, ordinance or administrative order.
• jurisdiction of the administrative agency
• there is an error committed by the
administrative officer

2. Question of Fact
General Rule: Factual findings of administrative bodies are accorded
respect, if not finality.
Exceptions, if:
1.The decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
2.The findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or collusion.
3.The procedure is irregular.
4.Palpable or serious errors have been committed.
5.When grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is
manifest.
6.The law explicitly authorizes review of factual matters.
7.There is conflict in the factual findings not only at the Ombudsman
level, but even at the appellate court.

3. Mixed Questions of Law and Fact (Brandeis Doctrine of
Assimilation of Facts)
This doctrine lays down the rule that when a finding of fact
is so intimately involved and dependent upon the question
of law, the court will, in order to resolve the question of
law, examine the factual setting including the evidence
adduced thereto. (Findings of facts are necessary in order
to determine the findings of law).

Instances where Factual Finding of Administrative
Agency is Subject to Judicial Review
• Where the procedure followed by the administrative agency is
irregular or improper (e.g. non-compliance of procedural due
process);
• Where there is capriciousness or arbitrariness committed by
the administrative officer in the course of the proceeding;
• Where there is a clear lack of authority on the part of the
public officer. So there is a need to exhaust administrative
remedies;
• Where the issue involves pure questions of law. Pure
questions of law are subject to judicial review consistent with
Article VII, Section 5 of the Constitution: “All cases in which
only an error or question of law is involved.” The
administrative officer cannot rule with finality on a legal issue.

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL IMMUNITIES
General Rule: Administrative bodies are
not allowed to grant criminal and civil
immunities to persons.
Exceptions: Where the law itself
authorizes the grant of such immunity to the
individual.

THREE-FOLD RESPONSIBILITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS AND EMPOYEES (Three Possible
Liablities of an Officer)
• A basic principle of the law on public officers is
that a public official or employee is under a
three-fold responsibility for violation of duty or for
a wrongful act or omission – a public officer may
be held civilly, criminally and administratively
liable for a wrongful doing (Tecson vs.
Sandiganbayan, 318 SCRA 80).

• A criminal prosecution will not constitute a
prejudicial question even if the same facts and
circumstances are attendant 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.
Neither would the results in one conclude the
other. (Gatahalian Promotions Talents Pool vs.
Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406).

• Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an
administrative prosecution or vice versa. The court in
dismissing the criminal complaint was simply saying that the
prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt. The absence of proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean an absence of any evidence whatsoever
for there is another class of evidence which, though
insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is
adequate in administrative cases; the substantial evidence
rule in administrative proceedings merely requires such
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion (Ocampo vs. Ombudsman,
322 SCRA 22).

• Administrative offenses do not prescribe (Floria
vs. Sunga, 368 SCRA 551). (Prescriptive period
for criminal case is 15 years, while
administrative case is imprescriptible; Sec 20 of
the Ombudsman Act provides that no
investigation is needed – this is merely directive)

• An administrative complaint against public
officers cannot just be withdrawn at any time by
the simple expediency of the complainant
suddenly claiming a change of mind (Nones vs.
Ormita, 390 SCRA 320).

• An affidavit of desistance will not automatically result to
the dismissal of an administrative case or to the
exoneration of respondent. This is because the
complainant is merely a witness in an administrative
case. It cannot, by his own desistance, divest the court
of its jurisdiction for the court has an interest apart from
complainant’s own in determining the truth and, when
necessary imposing sanctions against erring court
employees (Jacob vs. Tambo, 369 SCRA 148)

DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS AND
CONDONATION
Under this doctrine, public officials cannot be subject to
disciplinary action for administrative misconduct committed
during a prior term.
The doctrine is not only founded on the theory that an official’s
re-election expresses the sovereign will of the electorate to
forgive, or condone any act or omission constituting a ground
for administrative discipline which was committed during his
previous term, but also dictated by public policy, otherwise his
second term may just be devoted to defending himself in the
said cases to the detriment of public service. The doctrine
cannot however apply to criminal acts which the reelected
official may have committed during his previous term.

RES JUDICATA IN ADMINISTRATIVE
CASES
Decisions and orders of administrative agencies have,
upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final
judgment within the purview of the res judicata doctrine.
The rule of res juidcata thus forbids the reopening of a
matter once determined by competent authority acting
within their exclusive jurisdiction.
Once an issue has been adjudicated in a valid final
judgment of a competent court, it can no longer be
controverted anew and should be finally laid to rest.

Exception to the doctrine of res judicata:
1. Where the are supervening events which make it imperative, in
the higher interest of justice, to modify a final judgment to
harmonize it with prevailing circumstances (Teodoro vs.
Carague, 206 SCRA 4290.
1. Where the applicability of the doctrine would involve the sacrifice
of justice to technicality (De Leon vs.CA), as when it would
amount to a denial of justice or a bar for a vindication of a
legitimate grievance (Suarez vs. CA, 194 SCRA 183);
1. Where the parties involve have waived it or do not timely raise it
as a defense (Teodoro vs. Carague).
1. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to question of
citizenship (Labo vs. COMELEC).

Admin concept and procedure

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Admin concept and procedure

Similar to Admin concept and procedure (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Admin concept and procedure