This document discusses the powers and functions of administrative agencies in the Philippines, including fact-finding, investigative, licensing, and rate-fixing powers. It also covers judicial review of administrative decisions. The key points are: 1) Administrative agencies have powers to ascertain facts, investigate matters, issue licenses, and fix rates; 2) Their findings of fact are generally given great deference; 3) Judicial review is allowed for questions of law, grave abuse of discretion, and constitutional issues; and 4) The doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies guide when courts can intervene in administrative matters.

1. Administrative Law
Fact-Finding, Investigative,
Licensing, and Rate-Fixing
Powers
AND
Judicial Review

2. a. Ascertainment of Fact
• A statute may give to non-judicial officers:
• 1. The power to declare the existence of
facts which call into operation the statute’s
provisions, and
• 2. May grant to commissioners and other
subordinate officers the power to ascertain
and determine appropriate facts as a basis
for procedure in the enforcement of
particular laws.

3. • Such functions are merely incidental to
the exercise of power granted by law to
clear navigable streams of unauthorized
obstructions. They can be conferred
upon executive officials provided the
party affected is given the opportunity to
be heard [Lovina v. Moreno, G.R. No. L-
17821 (1963)].

4. b. Investigative Powers
• Administrative agencies’ power to conduct
investigations and hearings, and make findings
and recommendations thereon is inherent in their
functions as administrative agencies.
• General Rule: Findings of fact by administrative agencies
and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise
because of their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but
even finality, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion
[Marlow Navigation Philippines Inc. vs. Heirs of Ricardo S.
Ganal, G.R. No. 220168 (2017)].

6. c.Licensing Function
Licensing Procedure
• 1. When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a
license is required to be preceded by notice and
hearing, the provisions concerning contested cases
shall apply insofar as practicable.
• 2. Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws,
rules and regulations or when public security, health, or
safety requires otherwise, no license may be
withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without
notice and hearing [Sec. 17, Chapter 3, Book VII,
Admin. Code].

7. Nonexpiration of License
•Where the licensee has made timely
and sufficient application for the
renewal of a license with reference to
any activity of a continuing nature, the
existing license shall not expire until the
application shall have been finally
determined by the agency [Sec. 18
Chapter 3, Book VII, Admin. Code].

8. • License” includes the whole or any part of
any agency permit, certificate, passport
clearance, approval, registration, charter,
membership, statutory exemption or other
form of permission, or regulation of the
exercise of a right or privilege.
• “Licensing” includes agency process
involving the grant, renewal, denial,
revocation, suspension, annulment,
withdrawal, limitation,
amendment,modification or conditioning of
a license.

9. When are notice and hearing
required in licensing?
• Only if it is a contested case. Otherwise, it can be
dispensed with (e.g., driver’s licenses) [Sec. 2, Chapter
1, Book VII, Admin. Code]. A license or permit is not a
contract between the sovereignty and the licensee.
Rather, it is a special privilege, a permission or
authority to do what is within its terms. It is always
revocable. The absence of an expiry date in a license
does not make it perpetual. Notwithstanding that
absence, the license cannot last beyond the life of the
basic authority under which it was issued [Gonzalo Sy
Trading v. Central Bank, G.R. No. L-41480 (1976)]

10. d. Fixing of Rates, Wages, and
Prices
• “Rate” means any charge to the public for a
service open to all and upon the same terms,
including individual or joint rates, tolls
classification or schedules thereof, as well as
communication, mileage, kilometrage and
other special rates which shall be imposed by
law or regulation to be observed and
followed by any person [Sec. 2, Chapter 1,
Book VII Admin. Code].

11. What are considered in the fixing of rates?
1. The present valuation of all the property of a public
utility, and
2. The fixed assets.
• The charter of Manila International Airport Authority
(MIAA), as amended, directly vests the power to
determine revisions of fees, charges and rates in
the “ministry head” and even requires approval of
the cabinet. The ministry head who has the power
to determine the revision of fees, charges and
rates of the
• MIAA is now the DOTC Secretary. As an attached
agency of the DOTC, the MIAA is governed by the
Administrative Code of 1987 which requires notice
and public hearing in the fixing of rates [MIAA v.
Airspan Corp., G.R. No. 157581 (2004)].

12. JUDICIAL REVIEW
• Judicial review may be granted or withheld as
Congress chooses, except when the Constitution
requires or allows it. Thus, a law may provide that the
decision of an administrative agency shall be final and
not reviewable and it would still not offend due
process.
• However, Sec. 1, par. 2, Art. VIII of the Constitution,
provides that judicial review of administrative
decisions cannot be denied the courts when there is
an allegation of grave abuse of discretion.

13. • It is generally understood that as to administrative
agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative
power, there is an underlying power in the courts
to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions
of law and jurisdiction even though no right of
review is given by statute. xxx Judicial review is
proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of
discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion [San
Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-39195 (1975),
citing Timbancaya v. Vicente, G.R. No. L-19100
(1963)].

14. Rationale
• The purpose of judicial review is to keep the
administrative agency within its jurisdiction
and protect the substantial rights of the
parties; It is that part of the checks and
balances which restricts the separation of
powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust
adjudications [St. Martin’s Funeral Homes v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 130866 (1998)]Rationale

15. • It is that part of the checks and balances
which restricts the separation of powers
and forestalls arbitrary and unjust
adjudications [St. Martin’s Funeral
Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866
(1998)].

16. EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
• 1. Questions of Law
a. Constitutionality of the law creating the
agency and granting it powers
b. Validity of agency action if these transcend
limits established by law
c. Correctness of interpretation or application
of the law

17. • 2. Questions of Fact
• Judicial Review. – Review shall be made on the
basis of the record taken as a whole. The findings of
fact of the agency when supported by substantial
evidence shall be final except when specifically
provided otherwise by law [Sec. 25, Chapter 4,
Book VII, Admin. Code].

18. • 3. Question of Discretion
• General Rule: Administrative and
discretionary functions may not be
interfered with by the courts.
• Rationale: Courts have none of the technical
and economic or financial competence which
specialized administrative agencies have at
their disposal, and in particular must be wary
of intervening in matters which are at their
core technical and economic in nature
Exceptions
• 1. When there is a grave abuse of discretion;

19. 1. Doctrine of Primary
Administrative Jurisdiction
• Courts cannot or will not determine a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction
of the administrative tribunal prior to the
resolution of that question by the administrative
tribunal, 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 [Guy v. Ignacio, G.R. No.
167824 (2010)].

20. Rationale
• In this era of clogged docket courts, the need for
specialized administrative boards with the special
knowledge and capability to hear and determine
promptly disputes on technical matters has become
well-nigh indispensable. Between the power lodged
in an administrative body and a court, the
unmistakable trend has been to refer it to the
former [GMA v. ABS CBN,G.R. No. 160703
(2005)].Rationale
• It can only occur where there is a concurrence of
jurisdiction between the court and the administrative
agency.

21. Requisites
• 1. Question to be resolved requires expertise of
administrative agency
• 2. Legislative intent on the matter is to have
uniformity in rulings
• 3. Administrative agency is performing a quasi-
judicial or adjudicatory function (not rulemaking or
quasi-legislative function [Smart v. NTC, G.R. No.
151908 (2003)]

22. • All the proceedings of the court in violation of the doctrine
and all orders and decisions rendered thereby are null and
void [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and
Development Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)].
• When the Doctrine is not Applicable Rationale
• 1. When the issue is not within the competence of the
administrative body to act on (e.g. pure questions of law,
over which the expertise is with the courts);
• a.
• Regular courts have jurisdiction in cases where what is
assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or
regulation issued by the administrative agency in the
performance of its quasi-legislative function [Smart v. NTC,
supra]
• 2. When the issue involved is clearly a factual question that
does not require specialized skills and knowledge for
resolution to justify the exercise of primary jurisdiction.

23. Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
• General Rule: Where the law has delineated
the procedure by which administrative
appeal or remedy could be effected, the
same should be followed before recourse to
judicial action can be initiated [Pascual v.
Provincial Board, G.R. No. L-11959
(1959)].Doctrine
e.g- COA, PAgCOr, CSC, City treasurer

24. • One of the reasons for exhaustion of administrative
remedies is our well-entrenched doctrine on
separation of powers, which enjoins upon the
Judiciary a policy of noninterference with matters
falling primarily (albeit not exclusively) within the
competence of other departments. Courts, for
reasons of law, comity and convenience, should not
entertain suits unless the available administrative
remedies have first been resorted to and the proper
authorities have been given an appropriate
opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if
any, committed in the administrative forum [Antolin
v.Domondon, G.R. No. 165036 (2010)].

25. • Requisites
• a. The administrative agency is performing a
quasi-judicial function;
• b. Judicial review is available; and
c. The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction.
• RATIONALE
• a. Legal reason: The law prescribes a
procedure.
• b. Practical reason: To ensure that disputes
involving technical and specialized matters are
first resolved by the body which has the
expertise and competence to resolve them,
and, in most cases, to give the agency a
chance to correct its own errors and prevent
unnecessary and premature resort to the
courts. It also entails lesser expenses and
provides for a speedier disposition of
controversies.

26. • c. Reasons of comity: Expedience,
courtesy, convenience.
• d. Separation of powers: enjoins upon the
Judiciary a policy of non-interference with
matters falling primarily (albeit not
exclusively) within the competence of other
departments.

27. Exceptions to the Doctrine
The exceptions may be condensed into three:
• 1. Grave abuse of discretion;
• 2. Pure question of law; or
• 3. No other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy
• JURISPRUDENCE: QUO WARRANTO

28. Effect of Failure to Exhaust
Administrative Remedies
• A direct action in court without prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies, when
required, is premature, warranting its
dismissal on a motion to dismiss grounded
on lack of cause of action

29. When Appeals to the Office of the
President are Required
• A decision or order issued by a department
or agency need not be appealed to the Office
of the President when there is a special law
that provides for a different mode of appeal.
If the law does not provide for a specific
relief appeals may be taken to the Office of
the President [Moran v. Office of the
President, G.R. No. 192957 (2014)].

30. When OP is not exercising quasi-
judicial functions
• When the OP itself represents a party, i.e., the
Republic, to a contract, it merely exercises a
contractual right by cancelling/revoking said
agreement—a purely administrative action which
should not be considered quasi-judicial in nature.
Thus, absent the OP's proper exercise of a quasi-
judicial function, the CA has no appellate
jurisdiction over the case [Narra Nickel Mining and
Development Corp. v. Redmont Consolidated Mines
Corp., G.R. No. 202877 (2015)].When