!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Chapter 1 Administrative Law
Broad Sense
Widest Sense Goodnow’s (less comprehensive)
Dean Rosco Pound’s (narrower)
Law, which provides structure of government and prescribes its procedure. Law which is intended to control administrative procedures of government Entire system of laws under which the machinery of state works and by which the state performs all government acts Part of the public law, which fixes the organization and determines the competence of the authorities which execute the law, and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of his rights. Branch of modern law under which the executive department of the government acting in a quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community , as under laws regulating public corporations, business affected with public interest, professions, trades, and callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of the public health and safety and promotion of the public convenience and advantage.
All of the definition has similarities Laws o State – government o Performs or Acts specific functions o Under Goodnow’s definition – it added an additional a new concept which is REMEDIES – that the government interferes in administrative action Under Pounds definition It justified why the government interferes o “purpose of promoting the well-being of the community” ! It expounded why the government interferes from Goodnow’s definition o ELEMENTS Branch of modern law Recent origin – enforcing stage o Under executive department Inly under executive department o Acting in quasi legislative and quasi-judicial capacity Functions administrative law can act – its powers o Interferes with rights of the individual Limits or expand a right for the benefit of society o Justification General : welfare or promotion of society o
Criticisms 1. Tendency towards arbitrariness Can be restrictive or lax – law is given wide latitude of discretion thus they can decide either way ( in favor or against) CON: whimsical actions or decisions 2. Lack of legal knowledge and aptitude in sound judicial technique
Advantages 1. Advantages of administrative adjudication vs. Executive action
•
•
3. Susceptibility to political bias or pressure, often brought about by uncertainty of tenure 4. Disregard for the safeguards that insure a full and fair hearings More leeway or lax to implement – expedite the case 5. Absence of standard rules of procedure suitable to the activities of each agency Every agency – own specialization Give way for adoption – can adjust 6. Dangerous combination of legislative, executive and judicial functions Discharge of functions Unclogged the courts Expertise: a. Regulates acts – legislative b. Implement – executive c. Enforce - judicial Cases:
Executive action: insures greater uniformity and impersonality of action. Congress resorted to administrative process as an alternative to executive action 2. Limitations upon powers of court Congress has entrusted the administration of some laws to administrative agencies instead of the courts 3. Trend towards preventive legislation 4. Limitations upon effective legislative action
•
5. Limitations upon exclusively judicial enforcement
• •
• • •
C
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Topic: Origin and Development of Administrative Law 1. SOLID HOMES, INC., vs. TERESITA PAYAWAL and COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 84811 August 29, 1989) Whether or not the courts under BP 129 (RTC has jurisdiction over the case or under PD 597 as amended by PD 1344 (empowering the NHA to take cognizant of cases between owner, contractor, developer or salesman) PD 597 as amended by PD 1344 states that •
•
SECTION 1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature: A. Unsound real estate business practices; practices ; B. 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 C. Cases involving specific performance of contractuala statutory obligations filed obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. (Emphasis supplied.) •
•
This construction must yield to the familiar canon that in case of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail regardless of the dates of their enactment - general law in this case is BP No. 129 and PD No. 1344 the special law. the Court sustained the competence of the respondent administrative body, in the exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction vested in it by PD No. 957 and PD No. 1344, to determine the rights of the parties under a contract to sell a subdivision lot.
2. CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, INC., vs. SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO and PRISCILLA T. IGNACIO (G.R. No. 164789 August 27, 2009) know what kind of real estate : SUBDIVISION SELLER o HOW it was sold - installment o SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real est ate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957 , the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature: A. Unsound real estate business practices; B. Claims involving involving refund refund and any other other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and C. Cases involving involving specific performance performance of contractual and and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. Note particularly pars. (b) and (c) as worded, where the HLURB’s jurisdiction concerns cases commenced by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers. As to par. (a), concerning “unsound real estate practices,” it would appear that the logical complainant would be the buyers and customers against the sellers (subdivision owners and developers or condominium builders and realtors ), and not vice versa. [Emphasis supplied.] CGA principally wants is a refund of all payments it already made to the respondents. This intent, amply articulated in its complaint, places its action within the ambit of the HLURB’s exclusive jurisdiction and outside the reach of the regular courts. Accordingly, CGA has to file its complaint before the HLURB, the body with the proper jurisdiction. SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers o provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957 , the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature: xxx B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer , dealer, broker or salesman; a nd NOTE: BUYER " against project owner, developer, dealer, broker, salesman (NOT VICE VERSA) o •
•
•
•
Topic: Criticism vs. Administrative Action 3. LOLITA DADUBO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (223 SCRA 747) HELD: We must also dismiss the petitioner's complaint that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed to comply with the constitutional requirement o to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which a decision is based. We have held that this provision applies only to courts of justice and not to administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission. 16 In any event, there was an earlier statement of the facts and the law involved in the decision rendered by the MSPB dated February 28, 1990, which affirmed DBP's decision to dismiss the petitioner. In both decisions, the facts and the law on which they were based were clearly and distinctly stated. NOTE: Administrative decisions on matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law (which the COURT can now take action on) •
•
Topic: Advocates of Administrative Law 4. LIANGA BAY LOGGING, CO., INC., vs. HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, and AGO TIMBER CORPORATION, (G.R. No. L-30637 July 16, 1987) Ago vs Lianga Bay Logging : determining the correct boundary line of the licensed timber areas of the contending parties Director of Forestry (decided in favor or Lianga) " Appealed to Dept. of Agriculture and Naturan Resources " appealed to the Office of the President (decided in favor of Lianga • •
D
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 • •
•
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Ago – went to court to determine boundary line " Lianga elevated the case via Certiorari to the SC HELD: court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of Civil Case No. 1253 of the Court of First Instance of Agusan nor has it jurisdiction o to decide on the common boundary of the licensed areas of petitioner Lianga and respondent Ago, as determined by respondents public officials against whom no case of grave abuse of discretion has been made. Absent a cause of action and jurisdiction, respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and excess, if not lack, of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the case under review and in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the final decision NOTE: courts of justice will generally not interfere with purely administrative matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of o government agencies and their expertise unless there is a clear showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion or when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their action may amount to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Topic: Elements of Administrative Law 5. IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS (249 SCRA 538) This case is about ISA commencing expropriation proceedings – but during the proceedings ISA expired ( the government granting its power now ceases to exist) HELD: ISA was held to be under National Government – it is under the executive department o Non incorporated – delegate or agent of the Philippines " responsibility reverts back to the Philippines upon expiration o NOTE: Courts have no jurisdiction over decision of administrative body EXCEPT upon abuse of discretion o •
•
•
6. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, vs. ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES (249 SCRA 162) Arbitration case: violation by LDB of collective bargaining agreement LDB did not pass its position paper as required by the Arbiter thus it decided in favor or LDBE It was appealed to the SC BP129 – CA has appellate jurisdiction over quasi judicial agency decisions SC said Voluntary arbitration not government employee / department BUT considered quasi judicial instrumentality o Instrumentality – authority to which the state delegates power to perform state function o NOTE An "instrumentality" is anything used as a means or agency. 12 Thus, the terms governmental "agency" or "instrumentality" are o synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by which a government acts, or by which a certain government act or function is performed. 13 The word "instrumentality," with respect t o a state, contemplates an authority to which the state delegates governmental power for the performance of a state function. 14 An individual person, like an administrator or executor, is a judicial instrumentality in the settling of an estate, 15 in the same manner that a sub-agent appointed by a bankruptcy court is an instrumentality of the court, 16 and a trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is an instrumentality of the state. 17 In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition o for certiorari from that award or decision, the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals petit ions of this nature for proper disposition. • • • • •
•
CHAPTER 2 BASIC CONCEPTS: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY (administrative Code of 1987) COVERAGE th
4 BRANCH GOVERNMENT
OF
THE
a. b. c. a. b.
Is an organ of government, other than a court and other than a legislature Which affects the rights of private parties Through either adjudication or rule – making Refer to any of the various units of the government Including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or GOCC or local government or a distinct unit therein. Boards, commission, division, bureaus, departments, office, authority, corporation, administration, division or agency a. It is either executive (administrative) or judicial OR b. It is quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial
TYPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES (PROCIP) Performing business service for public
Regulating business affected with public interest
Offering grant, gratuity, special privilege
Phil Postal Corp PNR MWSS NEA NFA NHA Insurance Commission LTFRB ERB NTC HLURB PVAO GSIS PAO
E
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)( Philhealth BOC BIR BID LRA NLRC ECC SSC SEC DAR COA SEC MTRCB GAB DDB
Carry function of government
Imbued with social policy
Police power to regulate private business or individuals
CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES MANNER OF CREATION CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS (maybe self-executing)
EXAMPLES Constitutional Commission Art 9 1987 Constitution
Ombudsman Art 11 Sec 5 1987 Constitution
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS (usual source of creation)
CHR Art 13 Sec 17 1987 Constitution OMB RA 9239 Optical Media Act of 2003 National Computer Center PD 1480 June 11 1978 Toll Regulatory Board PD 1112 Presidential Communications Groups EO 4 July 30 2010
AUTHORITY OF LAW (delegated executive)
ORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ACTIVITY DEFINITION a. Bringing into existence 1. b. Of an administrative agency CREATION a. Alternation of the structure 2. b. Of an administrative body REORGANIZATION a. Terminating the existence 3. b. Of an administrative office ABOLITION a. Office continues to exist 4. b. Albeit dormant DEACTIVATION
EXAMPLE EO 122 –A (Jam. 30 1987) Creating OMA EO 297 (July 25, 1987) Reorganization of OPS
EO 13 (Nov 15, 2010) Abolishing PAGC EO 191 (Jan 7, 2000) Deactivation of EIIB
REORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES PURPOSES a. Simplicity Larin vs Executive Secretary 280 SCRA 713 b. Economy FACTS: in 1993 Pres. Ramos issue EO 132 streamlining BIR, Excise Tax Service, headed by c. Efficiency Larin was abolished. Then, Pres Ramos appointed 10 BIR assistant commissions, excluding Larin
LIMITATIONS
Good Faith
HELD: if abolition is done for political reasons or to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise not in good faith, no valid abolition takes place and whatever abolition is done is void ab initio Dario vs Mison 176 SCRA 84 FACTS: on Jan 26, 1988 Commission Salvador Mison notified various Customs officials that their services were terminated. Deputy Commissioner Cesar Dario was one of the 394 officials and employees of BOC who were separated from service HELD: Terminating 394 BOC employees and thereafter hiring 522 replacements is a revamp pure and simple. Mison may carry out reorganization under the transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution. But such reorganization should be subject to the criterion of good faith
POWER TO REORGANIZE EXECUTIVE Art VII Sec 17 1987 POWER Constitution: The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs Zamora GR no 142801-802 July 10, 2001
FACTS: on Jan 7, 2000 Pres Estrade issue EO 191, ordering deactivation of EIIB and transfer of its function to BOC and NBI. On March 29, 2000 Estrade issue EO 223 proving that EIIB personnel shall be deemed separated from service effective April 30, 2000 HELD: as far as offices in the executive department are concerned, President’s power of control may justify him to inactivate functions of particular office, or certain laws may grant him authority to carry out reorganization measures
F
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 CONTINUING AUTHORITY
567!-3 89:69;98
Sec 31 Book III Chap 10 EO 29: The President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President
POWER TO REORGANIZE UNDER EO 292 OP PROPER PRESIDENT CAN: a. Abolish, consolidate merge units
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Bagaoisan vs National Tobacco Authority GR No 152845 Aug 5, 2003
FACTS: On Sept 30, 1998 Pres Estrada issued EO 29 “Streamlining NTA” Dranita Bagaoisan, etal all occupying different positions at NTA-Batac, received notices of termination of their employment effective 30 days from receipt thereof HELD: in the present instance, involving neither an abolition nor transfer of offices, the assailed action is a mere reorganization under the general provisions of the law consisting mainly of streamlining the NTA in the interest of simplicity, economy, and efficiency. It is an act well within the authority of President motivated and carried out in good faith.
Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs Zamora
or
OR Transfer functions from one unit to another PRESIDENT CAN: a. Transfer functions or agencies OP to other departments or agencies b.
OUTSIDE PROPER
OF
OP
But still within OP
OR b.
Transfer function or agencies other department or agencies to OP
ABOLITION BY VIRTUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS AUTHORITY OF LAW
Bagaoisan vs NTA
Domingo vs Zamoura GR no 142283 Feb 6, 2003
FACTS: In 1999 Pres Estrada issued EO 81 transferring the Sports Programs of DECS to PSC. Rosa Domingo etal went to SC, arguing that a. EO 81 is unconstitutional for being an undue legislation by Pres. Estrada b. DECS is not part of OP HELD: Under EO 292 DECS is a Department of Executive Branch, Even if DECS is not part of OP. Sec 31 (2) (3) of EO 292 authorizes Pres to transfer any function or agency of DECS to OP. PSC is attached to OP. Therefore, Pres has authority to transfer functions of DECS to PSC
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES COVERED a. For constitutionally created offices b. Those created pursuant to law c. Those created pursuant to delegated authority a. Those created pursuant to law b. Those created pursuant to delegated authority a. Pursuant to such delegated authority CHAPTER 3 Power and Functions
Power Means by which function is fulfilled
Function Which one is bound or which it is one’s business to do
Issues rules and regulations
Mandate of the administrative body
Adjudicatory – power to hear and decide cases Not synonymous with each other
Example: LTFRB – regulate public transportation
Sources of Function / Power Legislative Enactments / Statutes Constitution Hybrid
Example: Charters Examples: COMELEC, COA, Constitutional Commission Combination from legislation and constitution Example: Office of Ombudsman Constitution: Article 11 Section 5 Legislation: RA 6770 (additional powers)
Different Classification of Powers As to Nature Include power to inspect the records and Investigatory Power premises and investigate the activities coming under jurisdiction or to secure or to
As to Degree of Subjective Choice Applied to public functionaries as to the Discretionary power or right conferred upon them by law of acting officially under certain
G
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
Quasi – legislative / Rule Making
567!-3 89:69;98
require the disclosure of information by means of accounts, records, reports, statements, testimony of witnesses, production of documents or otherwise. Permissible Delegation of Powers:
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)( circumstances according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience and not by others.
Ministerial
Tariffs Emergency Power Administrative Bodies Local Government Initiatives
Performed in response to a duty which has been imposed by law and not dependent upon an officer’s discretion
Must be expressly granted and cannot just Quasi – judicial / be implied Adjudicatory Cases Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. v. SEC, G.R. No. L-23004, June 30, Makati Stock Exchange: applied for a permit for a Stock Exchange in addition to 1965 Manila Stock Exchange SEC: approved; BUT with the condition of NO DOUBLE LISTING. Makati SE: complained that SEC has no power to impose such condition SEC: averred that no stock exchange shall operate without a uthority from them because they have the power to license Makati SEC: no express provision; denied application – went to court. SC: admin body can only exercise power expressly provided / necessarily complied therefrom. Ultra Vires: actions taken by government bodies or corporations that exceed the scope of power given to them
Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal, G.R. No. 84811, August 29, 1989 (FOCUS: issue interpretation of laws grantingpowers / statcon)
“Once power is expressly granted” = construction is liberal Express powers are liberally interpreted to exercise functions intended by law In case of doubt: resolved in favor of admin body to exercise power granted to it Transaction: sale of condo/subdivision lots (installments) = if NOT expressed = NHA no jurisdiction to assume case
Taule v. Santos, G.R. No. 90336, August 12, 1991
PD 957 = general rescission = involves breach contract = court of general jurisdiction RTC Taule: I Elected with 4 other barangay captains I President of Association of Federation of Brgy. Captains in Catanduanes (more like a city councilor / member of provincial board kind of position) DILG: nullifies the elections because the election process was not followed. Taule: was not happy Not COMELEC = not barangay elections Sec. Santos: contention was the conduct of elections of the federation or the guidelines followed. No express provision; since power to issue guidelines can be implied in this provision Doctrine of Necessary Implication: The doctrine which states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed SC: when results were nullified Santos heard and determined the rights of the parties which is a QUASI – JUDICIAL power
No express provision = no right to nullify General Rule: expressly granted / necessary implication Exception: QJP must be expressly granted
Payawal
Makati SE
Taule
H
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 I I
Power to assume jurisdiction PD957 Included: activity arises from transaction of sale of legislative content = liberal = valid PD957
BASIC CONCEPTS INVESTIGATORY POWER (inquisitorial power) JUDICIAL FUNCTION JUDICIAL DISCRETION TEST OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
567!-3 89:69;98
Express and Implied No express grant of power = no provision to liberally interpret
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Power to issue complied? NO! QJP should be expressly granted No express grant of power = no provision to liberally interpret
a. b. c. a. b. a. b. a. b. c.
Power to carry out a systematic or formal inquiry On violation of laws And to gather information on proposed legislations Power to adjudicate Upon rights and obligations of parties Power to evaluate evidence submitted to it On the facts and circumstances presented Not the exercise of judicial discretion But the power and authority to adjudicate Upon rights and obligations of parties before it
INVESTIGATORY POWER PRINCIPLE NO 1 To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge CARINO VS CHR 204 SCRA 483 FACTS: MPSTA and ACT Members – on Sept 17, 1990 undertook “mass concerted action” to “dramatize” theur plight for failure of authorities to act upon their grievances Sec. Isidro Carino – issued return to work order in 24 hrs to striking teachers or face dismissed for failure to heed the order, teachers were charged, preventively suspended for 90 days and temporarily replaced Teachers – complained to CHR that they were replaced without notice and for no reason. Carino moved for dismissed for lack of jurisdictions. CHR denied the motion and ruled that there had been violation of the teachers’ civil and political rights which CHR was empowered to investigate Carino elevated the case to SC HELD The only thing CHR can do, if it concludes that Sec. Carino was in error, is to refer matter to appropriate Government agency or tribunal for assistance, that would be CSC, it cannot arrogate unto itself the appellate jurisdiction of the CSC The most that may be conceded to CHR is that it may investigate i.e receive evidence and make findings of facts as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights PURPOSES OF GRANT OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS CHR INFORMATION GATHERING NBI
PROSEUCTION PURPOSES
Public Proseuctor Ombudsman
AID TO OTHER POWERS
SEC
Sec 18 Art XIII (1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights; Sec 1 RA 157 (a) To undertake investigations of crimes and other offenses against the laws of the Philippines, upon its own initiative and as public interest may require; Sec 13 Art XI 1987 Constitution (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. Sec 5 (a) Securities Regulation Code (RA8799) (a) Have jurisdiction and supervision over all corporations, partnership or associations who are the grantees of primary franchises and/or a license or a permit issued by the Government; Sec 5(d) Securities Regulation Code (RA8799) (d) Regulate, investigate or supervise the activities of persons to ensure compliance;
SCOPE AND EXTENT OF INVESTIGATIVE POWERS SCOPE EXTENT 1. INITIATION OF On complaint INVESTIGATION (examine, Or explore, inquire) Own motion
2. CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION (audit, physical investigation, monitoring)
May be held in private
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES Villaluz vs Zaldivar (15 SCRA 710) power of control of President may extend to power to investigate, suspend or remove officers and employees who belong to executive department (presidential appointees) Ruiz vs Drilon 209 SCRA 695 – respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of investigating committee
J
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Sec of Justice vs Lantion 332 SCRA 160 – due process rights of notice and hearing may be invoked at evaluation stage of extradition proceedings
3. INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION (routine inspection for enforcement of regulation)
No search warrant required
4.ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, REPORTS OR STATEMENTS
Access to documents of person being investigated
5. ATTENDANCE WITNESSES
No inherent power to:
OF
Conduct inspection during reasonable hours
1. 2.
6.HEARING
7. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS (failing to appear or refusing to produce document)
Require attendance Put under oath; require to testify May be held but not necessary part of investigation Requisites: 1. Statutory grant 2. Performing quasi – judicial functions
Pefianco vs Moral 322 SCRA 439 – respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of investigating committee Camara vs Mun. Court 387 US 523 – There was no emergency demanding immediate access. Yet no warrant was obtained. Salazar vs Achacoso 183 SCRA 145 – Art 39 Labor Code, which grants Secretary of Labor authority to issue orders of arrest, search and seizure, is unconstitutional, because Secretary is not a judge Catura vs CIR 37 SCRA 303 – documents required to be produced constitutes evidence of most solid character as to whether or not there was failure to comply with mandates of the law. Evangelista vs Jarencio 69 SCRA 99 – subpoena is within legal competence of PARGO to issue pursuant to EO 4 which empowered it to “summon witness… relevant to the investigation”
Office Court Administrator vs Canque 588 SCRA 226 – administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. A formal or trial-type hearing is not required. Carmelo vs Ramos 116 Phil 1152 – one who invokes Sec 580 RAC must first show he has “authority to take testimony or evidence” before he can apply to courts for punishment of hostile witnesses Masangcay vs Comelec 6 SCRA 27 – when comelec exercises ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to punish contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature
8. RULES OF PROCEDURES AND EVIDENCE
Administrative agency is given wide latitude
Bedol vs Comelec 606 SCRA 554 – to withhold from comelec the power of contempt would render nugatory its investigation power which is an essential incident to its mandate to secure honest and credible elections Gaoiran v Alcala 444 SCRA 428 – in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.
I. INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION PRINCIPLE Administrative agency or official may initiate investigation on a complaint or on its own motion VILLALUZ vs ZALDIVAR 15 SCRA 710 FACTS: Ruben Villaluz – was appointed Administrator of Motor Vehicles Office (MVO) Cong. Joaquin Roces (Chairman of the Committee on Good Government) – informed the President about the findings of his Committee concerning alleged gross mismanagement and efficiency committed by Villaluz in MVO. Cong. Roces recommended the replacement of Villaluz President = dismissed Villaluz, after the investigating committee created thereby its report Villaluz – claims that the administrative proceedings conducted against him are illegal since there was no previous verified complaint against him HELD: The chief executive, as administrative head of Villaluz, is empowered to commence administrative proceedings motu proprio, without need of any previous complaint. II. CONDUCT INVESTIGATION PRINCIPLE NO 1. Respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of investigating committee. RUIZ VS DRILON 209 SCRA 695 FACTS: Dr. Eliseo Ruiz - was ordered dismissed by Pres. Aquino for dishonesty and grave misconduct as President of Central Luzon State University (CLSU) ES Franklin Drilon denied Ruiz MR Ruiz – filed petition for prohibition with CA, which issued TRO. After 8 days, Ruiz filed with SC petition for annulment of AO 218 as well as orders of Drilon denying his MR. CA dismissed the petition as forum shopping. Thus, Ruiz went to SC alleging that he was not informed of the findings of the investigation conducted against him. HELD Ruiz is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him He is entitled only to an administrative decision that is based on substantial evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made against him and the evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigating committees. PEFIANCO V MORAL 322 SCRA 439 FACTS: Maria Luisa Moral (Chief Librarian National Library) – was charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudiced to the best interest of the service (pilferage of historical documents) DECS Investigating Committee – conducted hearings. Thereafter DECS Sec Ricardo Gloria ordered Moral dismissed from government service
K
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Moral – filed Petition for Production of Investigating Committee Report purportedly to guide her on whatever action to take. Her petition was denied. She filed for mandamus. RTC denied motion to dismiss filed by Gloria. On appeal CA, sustained RC. Gloria went to SC HELD A respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him. He is entitled only to the decision based on substantial evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and evidence presented against her during the hearings of the investigation committee PRINCIPLE NO 2. Due process rights of notice and hearing may be invoked at evaluation stage of extradition proceedings SEC. OF JUSTICE VS LANTION 332 SCRA 160 FACTS: Sec Franklin Drilon - formed a panel to evaluate the request for extradition by the US government of Mark Jimenez, who is wanted in the US for various crimes Jimenez – pending evaluation, requested for copies of extradition request and documents submitted Drilon – denied the request on the ground, inter alia, that its premature to furnish Jimenez document Judge Ralph Lantion – upon petition of Jimenez directed DOJ to maintain status quo. Drilon went to SC HELD One will search in vain the RP-US Extradition Treaty, the Extradition Law ( PD1069), as well as American jurisprudence and procedures on extradition, for any prohibition against the enforcement of 2 basic due process rights of notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition proceedings Jimenez does not only face clear and present danger and loss of property or employment, but of liberty itself, which may eventually lead to his forcible banishment to a foreign land III. INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION PRINCIPLE NO 1. No search warrant is required but inspection must be conducted during reasonable hours CAMARA V MUNICIPAL COURT 387 US 523 FACTS Camara – was a lessee of the ground floor of an apartment building San Francisco Health Department – received information that Camara, was using the rear of his leasehold as residence. Claiming that the building’s occupancy permit did not allow residential use of the ground floor, inspector of the Healt h Department demanded that Camara permit an inspection of the premises Camara – refused to allow the inspection because the inspector lacked search warrant
HELD There was no emergency demanding immediate access; in fact the inspectors made three trips to the building in an attempt to obtain Camara’s consent to the search Yet no warrant was obtained and thus Camara was unable to verify either the need for or the appropriate limits of the inspection PRINCIPLE NO 2. Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge SALAZAR VS ACHACOSO 183 SCRA 145 FACTS Timas Achacoso (POEA Adminsitrator) – ordered the seizure of documents and paraphernalia being used as means of committing illegal recruitment owned by Hortencia Salazar Salazar – requested POEA that the personal properties seized be immediately returned on the ground that said seizure violate Sec 2 Art 3 of the Philippine Consitution which guarantees right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose” Before POEA could act on the request, Salazar filed suit for Prohibition with SC HELD The Secretary of Labor (or the POEA Administrator), not being a judge may no longer issue search or arrest warrants Art 38 par. C of the Labor Code empowering the Labor Secretary to issue search and arrest warrants in illegal recruitment cases is declared unconstitutional. IV. PRINCIPLE
ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, REPORTS OR STATEMENTS Accounts, records, reports or statements may be required to be delivered and deposited with administrative body at the hearing. CATURA VS CIR 37 SCRA 303 FACTS Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador – President and Treasurer, respectively, of Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administrative Employees Association (PVTAEA) were charged before the CIR with “unauthorized disbursement of union funds” CIR – required Catura and Salvador to deliver and deposit all Association’s book of accounts and other documents related to finances of the union Catura and Salvador – filed MR on the ground that the order was beyond the power of CIR to issue HELD All that the challenged order did was to require said union officers to “deliver and deposit” with CIR all documents related to its finances at the hearing The documents required to be produced constitutes evidence of the most solid character as to whether or not there was a failure to comply with the mandates of the law V. ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES PRINCIPLE It is common for statutes to confer such powers on administrative agencies EVANGELISTA VS JARENCION 69 SCRA 99 FACTS Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations ( PARGO) – created through EO 4, with power to investigate immoral practices, graft and corruptions, and to investigate any public official or employee. Further, it is vested with power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to investigation.
L
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Usec. Quirico Evangelista – issued subpoena to Fernando Manalastas, Public Service officer of Manila Manalastas – instead of obeying subpoena, filed with CFI-Manila petition for prohibition contending that Pargo’s subpoena power is exercisable when it is performing quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function Judge Hilarion Jarencio – granted the Petition. Thus Usec. Evangelista went to SC HELD The subpoena is well within the legal competence of PARGO to issue pursuant to EO 4 (5) which empowered it to “summon witness… relevant to the investigation” Subpoena power operates in all functions of PARGO. It is not merely exercisable in quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. To hold that subpoena power of PARGO is confined to mere quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions would inactivate the Agency in its investigatory functions. VI. HEARING PRINCIPLES In administrative investigation, formal or trial type hearing is not required. OFFICE OF COURT ADM. V CANQUE 588 SCRA 226 FACTS: Sylvia Canque (Clerk of Court of Cebu) – was arrested by NBI after an entrapment operation. SC treated the NPI entrapment as administrative complaint for grave misconduct. Case was referred to OCA for investigation, report and recommendation. SC, upon recommendation of OCA, reassigned case to RTC-Cebu for investigation, report and recommendation Investigating Judge – found Conque guilty of grave misconduct and recommended penalty of dismissal OCA – recommended that report of Investigating Judge be set aside and complaint be reinvestigated upon finding that Canque was not informed of her right to be heard by herself and counsel during the investigation which allegedly amounted to denial of her right to due process HELD The essence of due process is that a party be afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his defense Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied to administrative proceedings. Thus, administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. A formal or trial-type of hearing is not required. VII. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS PRINCIPLE NO1. Power to punish contempt must be expressly granted to administrative body CARMELO VS RAMOS 116 PHIL 1152 FACTS Jesus Carmelo – tasked by virtue of an EMO issued by the Mayor of Manila to head a committee to investigate anomalies involving certain city personnel, issued subpoenas to Amando Ramos, bookkeeper, to appear in connection with an administrative case but Ramos refused. Carmelo filed in CFI- Manila to declare Ramos in contempt. CFI ruled that there is no law empowering committees created by municipal mayors to issue subpoenas and demand witnesses to testify under oath Carmelo – appealed to the SC invoking Sec 580 Revised Administrative Code which provides “when authority to take testimony or evidence is conferred upon… any… committee… such authority shall… comprehend the right to administer oaths and summon witnesses… Any on without lawful excuse, fails to appear upon summons… shall be subject to discipline as in case of contempt of court” HELD One who invokes Sec 580 must first show he has authority to take testimony or evidence before he can apply to courts for punishment of hostile witnesses There is nothing in the EO about such grant of power. All that the order gives to this body is power to investigate anomalies involving certain city anomalies. Delegation of power to investigate does not imply delegation of power to take testimony or evidence of witnesses whose appearance may be required by the c ompulsory process of subpoena.
PRINCIPLE NO 2.
Effectiveness of quasi-judicial power hinges on its authority to compel attendance of parties and their witnesses at hearings.
BEDOL VS COMELEC 606 SCRA 554 FACTS: Comelec Task Force Maguindanao – was tasked to conduct fact-finding investigation of allegations of fraud and irregularities in the onduct of the May 14,2007 elections in Maguindanao Lintang Bedol (PES for Maguindanao) – for refusing to appear during hearings and to answer questions before the task force, was found guilty of Contempt of the Commission and meted 6 months imprisonment. He filed MR, which was denied. He elevated case to SC contending that COMELEC, sitting as National Board of Canvassers, was performing administrative and not quas-judicial functions. He argued that COMELEC, in that capacity, could not punish him for contempt. HELD COMELEC, through task force Maguindanao was exercising its quasi-judicial power in pursuit of truth behind the allegations of massive fraud during the elections in Maguindana To withhold from COMELEC the power to punish individuals who refuse to appear during the fact-finding investigation, would render nugatory COMELEC’s investigatory power, which is an essential incident to its constitutional mandate to secure the conduct of honest and credible elections. PRINCIPLE NO 3.
When granted power to contempt may only be exercised only when administrative body is performing quasi-judicial functions MASANGKAY V COMELEC 6 SCRA 27 FACTS: Benjamin Masangcay (Provincial Treasurer of Aklan) – was charged before COMELEC with contempt for having opened three boxes containing official and sample ballots for Aklan, in violation of Comelec, resolution inasmuch as he opened said boxes not in the presence of division superintendent of schools, provincial auditor, and representatives of NP, L P and Citizen’s party, as required in said resolution Masangkay – elevated the case to SC contending that even if he can be held guilty of contempt, the decision is null and void for lack of valid power on the part of the Commission to impose such disciplinary penalty. HELD:
CM
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
When Comelec exercises ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to punish contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature The resolution which COMELEC tried to enforce and for whose violation the charge for contempt was filed against Masangcay merely call for the exercise of an administrative or ministerial function for they merely concern the procedure to be follower in the distribution of ballots and other election paraphernalia among the difference municipalities. GAOIRAN VS ALCALA 444 SCRA 428 FACTS Florian Gaoiran (Head Teacher, Angadanan Agro-Industrial College) – was charged by Edmon Castillejo (Administrative officer of the same school) before the CHED, for mauling him while he was performing his duties. Appended to complaint were verified criminal complaint filed by Castillejo and sworn statements of his witnesses for assault to person in authority. Caoiran was preventively suspended for 90 days. He sought reconsideration contending that complaint was not under oath citing EO 292 Angel Alcala (CHED chairman) – dismissed Gaoiran from service Gaoiran filed petition with RTC, which ruled in his favor. On appeal, CA reversed RTC. Aggrieved, Gaoiran went to SC. HELD The verified criminal complaint that Castillejo filed against Gaoiran, as well as the sworn statements of his witnesses could be very well considered as constituting the complaint against him Government agency is given wide latitude in the scope and exercise of its investigative powers. After all, in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. VIII.
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE
PRINCIPLE Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings ANG TIBAY VS CIR 60 PHIL 635 FACTS Ang Tibay – owned and operated by Toribio Teodoro, is a leather company which supplies Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of leather soles, Toribio laid off members of National Labor Union NLU – sought relief from CIR alleging that this was but scheme t o discharge members of NLU from work as borne out by “records of Bureau of Customs and Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather” CIR – ruled in favor of Ang Tibay. NLU now petitions for new trial as they were able to come up with new evidence that they were not able to obtain before as they were inaccessible and thus were not able to present them in the CIR HELD CIR more an administrative than part of the integrated judicial system of the nation The fact that CIR may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character Rule Making Power BASIC CONCEPTS RULE-MAKING POWER (power of subordinate legislation) RULES AND REGULATIONS RATIONALE
NECESSITY NATURE OF GRANT
a. Power given to administrative agencies b. To issue or promulgate rules and regulations c. Necessary to carry out its functions a. Those issued by administrative or executive officers b. In accordance with and as authorized by law Administrative bodies have: a. Competence b. Opportunity a. In order to adopt to the i ncreasing complexity b. Of modern life and variety of public functions a. Relaxation of separation of powers; and b. An exception to non-delegation of legislative powers
PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS RULE RULE: potestas delegata non delegari potest BASIS: Delegated Power = (Right + Duty) – Further Delegation = Negation KMU V GARCIA (239 SCRA 386) FACTS: LTFRB Circular – Authorized provincial bus operators to increase or decrease prescribed fare without first having filed a petition Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines (BOAP) – pursuant there, announced 20% fare increase KMU – opposed the move. However, LTFRB dismissed the petition. KMU went to SC assailing he constitutionality of said Circular on the ground that it violates Sec 16© of Public Service Act (CA 146), which tasks the LTFRB with the duty to fix and determine just and reasonable fares HELD a. Legislature delegated to the defunct PSC the power of fixing rates of public services. LTFRB (regulatory board today) is likewise vested with the same under EO 202 b. Nowhere under said law is LTFRB authorized to delegate that power to transport operators. The authority given by LTFRB to provincial bus operators to set fare range is ta ntamount to an undue delegati on of legislative authority. Potestas delegate non delegari potest. 3 ISSUES ON RULE MAKING POWER
CC
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 1.
2.
PERMISSIBILITY DELEGATION
OF
VALIDITY OF DELEGATION
567!-3 89:69;98
Whether or not there is: a. Legislative grant of authority b. To administrative bodies c. To issue rules and regulations
Whether or not the grant meets the a. Completeness test b. Sufficient standard test
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1.
2.
3.
VALIDITY OF EXERCISED
Whether or not regulation conforms with: a. What the statute provides b. Whether the same is reasonable
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Delegation of tariff powers to the president Delegation of emergency powers to the president Delegation to the people at large Delegation to local government Delegation to administrative bodies Statute is complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves legislature so that there will be nothing left for delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it Statute fixes a standard, mapping out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued an effected Not inconsistent with constitution Not inconsistent with statute Cannot amend act of congress Cannot exceed provisions of basic law Uniform, reasonable, not unfair or disciminatory
ST
1 ISSUE : PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION 1. Delegation of tariff powers to the president
2.
Delegation of emergency powers to the president
3.
Delegation to the people at large
4.
Delegation to local government
5.
Delegation to administrative bodies
SECTION 28.(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. SECTION 23. (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization By Legislative Act – authorizing it to promulgate rules and regulations By implication – adopt rules and regulations deemed necessary to the efficient exercise of the powers expressly granted
st
1 ISSUE – PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION I. Delegation to By Legislative Act – authorizing it to promulgate rules and regulations Administrative Bodies By implication – necessary to the efficient exercise of the powers expressly granted PASEI V TORRES 212 SCRA 298 FACTS DOLE SEC. RUBEN TORRES- as a result of the published stories regarding abuses suffered by Filipino housemaids in Hong Kong, issued Department Order No. 16 temporarily suspending recruitment by private employment agencies of “Filipino helpers going to HK” PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. (PASEI) - filed for prohibition on the grounds that 1. Respondents acted in excess of their rule making authority Circulars are contrary to constitution, a re unreasonable, unfair and oppressive 2. HELD a.
b.
Art 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement activities. Department Order No. 16 merely restricted the scope of petitioner’s business operations by excluding therefrom recruitment and deployment of domestic helpers for Hong Kong till after the establishment of the “mechanisms” that will enhance the protection of Filipino domestic helpers going to HK Circulars are valid exercise of the police power as delegated to the executive branch of the Government
CD
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
SANTIAGO V COMELEC 270 SCRA 106 FACTS Comelec Resolution No 2300 – was issued to govern “the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and Initiative and Referendum and National and Local Laws” Sen Miriam Santiago- argues that Comelec resoslution 2300 is ultra vires since only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law pursuant to Art. XVII, Sec 2(2) which provides thus, “The Congress shall provide for t he implementation of this right” HELD
ND
2
a.
Comelec does not have the power under RA 6725 to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative
b.
Reliance on Sec 2(1) Art IX-C Constitution is misplaced for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by Comelec under Sec 3 Art IX-C and a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the completeness and the sufficient standard tests
ISSUE – VALIDITY OF DELEGATION
I. COMPLETENESS TEST
Illustrative Case
II.SUFFICIENT TEST
STANDARD
Illustrative Case
I. COMPLETENESS TEST
a. Statute is complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves legislature b. So that there will be nothing left for delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it US v Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1 – Legislature did not specify under what conditions the rules may be issued and did not define what constitutes extraordinary increase in price of cereals. Promulgation of rules is left to sole discretion of Governor General Law thus it is incomplete as a legislation a. Statutes fixes a standard, mapping out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority b. By defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected Ynot v IAC 148 SCRA 659 – one searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guideline, or better still, the limitations that said officers must observe when they make their distribution. There is none Statute is complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves legislature so that there will be nothing left for delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it
US. V. ANG TANG HO 43 Phil 1 FACTS Act No 2868 (1919) – authorizes Governor – General to issue and promulgate rules ‘”whenever, for any case , conditions arise resulting in extraordinary rise in price of palay, rice or corn” Governor General - pursuant there, issue EO 53 fixing the price at which rice should be sold Ang Tang Ho – was charged with the sale price greater than that fixed by EO 53. He was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment plus P500.00 fine. He appealed the sentence countering that there i s undue delegation of power to the Governor General HELD a. Promulgation of rules is left to the discretion of the Governor General. Legislature did not define under what conditions the rules may be issued b. Legislature also does not define what constitutes extraordinary increase in price of cereals. Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon which the proclamation should be issued, II.SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST
Statute fixes a standard, mapping out boundaries of delegated authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected
YNOT V IAC 148 SCRA 659 FACTS EO 626-A - prohibits inter-provincial transportation of carabaos, and provides further that such, “carabao transported violation thereof shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by government, and that the confiscated property shall be distributed to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit” RESTITUTO YNOT – on January 13, 1984, transported 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo in a pump boat. His carabaos were confiscated by the police for violation of EO 626-A YNOT – filed a suit for recovery with RTC-Iloilo, which sustained the confiscation. On appeal, IAC, upheld RTC. Thus Ynot went to SC contending that EO 626-A is unconstitutional HELD
a.
That phrase “may see fit” is an extremely generous and dangerous condition. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, even corruption. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guideline, or better still, the limitations that said officers must observe when they make their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless
CE
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 b.
RD
3
567!-3 89:69;98
There is an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken.
ISSUE – VALIDITY OF EXERCISE
1. Not inconsistent constitution
with
the
2. Not inconsistent with statute
Constitutional Provisions Control what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative bodies Statutory provisions control what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative bodies
3. Cannot amend act of Congress
May not amend, alter, modify, supplant, enlarge or expand, restrict or limit the provisions or coverage of the statute
4. Cannot exceed Provisions of Basic Law
They must be within the scope and purview of the statutory authority granted by legislature
5. Not unreasonable, unfair or discriminatory
They must not act arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating rules and regulations
1.
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Not inconsistent Constitution
with
DAR V SUTTON GR NO 162070 Oct 19 2005 – DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform SOL GEN V MMA 204 scra 837 – PD 1605 (granting MMC powers related to traffic management and control in Manila) does not allow either removal of licenses plates or confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic violations. MMA Ordinance imposes sanctions PD 1605 does not allow and actually prohibits. in BOIE- Takeda V DE LA SERNA 228 SCRA 329 including commissions in the computation of the 13 th month pay, DOLE unduly expanded the concept of “basic salary” as defined in PD 851. Implementing rules, cannot add or detract from the provisions of the law it is designated to implement. UNITED BFHA V BF HOMES 310 SCRA 304 – There was a clear attempt to unduly expand the provisions of PD 902-A. The inclusion of the phrase “GENERAL PUBLIC OR OTHER ENTITY” is a matter which HIGC cannot legally do LUPANGCO V CA 160 SCRA 848 – PRC Resolution is not only unreasonable but arbitrary, it infringes on the examinees right to liberty granted by the constitution
Constitutional provisions control what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative bodies
DAR VS SUTTON GR NO 162070 OCT 19 2005 FACTS The Suttons (Delia, Ella, Harry) – in 1987, voluntarily offer to sell (VOD) to DAR their landholdings Luz Farms v Sec of DAR - in 1990 SCR ruled that lands devoted to livestock and poultry – raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land. Thus, the Suttons filed request to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle raising DAR Administrative Order No 9 - issued Dec 27, 1993, provided that only portions of private agricultural lands was used for the raising, of livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of CARL HELD
2.
a.
AO No 9 is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. AO sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing maximum retention limit for their ownership
b.
DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed AO
Not inconsistent with Statute
Statutory provisions control what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative bodies
SOL GEN v MM 204 SCRA 837 FACTS MTC V Ganong GR No 91023 July 13, 1990 - SC held that confiscation of license plates for traffic violations was not among the sanctions MMC could impose under PD 1605. Even confiscation of driver’s lic enses was not prescribed nor was it allowed to be imposed by MMC Motorists - complained to the Court, on various dates (1990-1991), on the confiscation of their driver’s licenses and removal of license plate numbers of their vehicles MMA – contended that since Goong decision said that confiscation of license plate was invalid in the absence of valid law or ordinance, MMA Ordinance No. 11 was issued, authorizing itself “to detach license plate of motor vehicles… obstructing flow of traffic in metro manila” Solicitor General – viewed said ordinance as invalid exercise of delegated legislative power HELD
CF
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
3.
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
a.
PD 1605 does not allow either removal of license plates or confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic violations committed in Metro Manila. Ordinances in question does not merely add to requirement of PF 1605 but, worse, impose sanctions the decree does not allow and in fact actually prohibits
b.
In so doing, ordinances, disregard and violate and in effect partially repeal the law May not amend, alter, modify, supplant, enlarge or expand, restrict or limit the provisions or coverage of the statute
Cannot amend Act of Congress
BOIE-TAKED V DELA SERNA 228 SCRA 329 FACTS: th
PD 851 – required all employers to pay t heir employees basic salary of not more than P1,000.00 a month, 13 month pay th
DOLE Implementing Guidelines- included “”commissions” in the computations of the 13 month pay BOIE- Takeda Chemicals - did not include commissions of its medical representatives in the computation of their 13month pay. Thus it was ordered by DOLE to pay the differential. BOIE- Takeda argues that PD 851 and its implementing rules speak of BASIC salary and therefore exclude all other remunerations which are not part of the BASIC salary HELD:
4.
a.
In including commissions in the computation of 13 th month pay, DOLE unduly expanded concept of “basic salary” as defined in PD 851
b.
Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of the law it is designed to implement. They cannot widen its scope. Administrative agency cannot amend on Act of Congress
Cannot Exceed Basic Law
Provisions
of
They must be within the scope and purview of the statutory authority granted by legislature
UBFHAI V BF HOMES 310 SCRA 304 FACTS PD 902-A - vested Home Insurance Guarantee Corp. (HIGC) with jurisdiction over homeowners’ dispute controversies arising “between such association and the state, insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exists as such entity” HIGC’s Revised Rules of Procedure – the phrase “general public or other entity” was added HELD
5.
a.
HIGC went beyond authority provided by the law when it promulgated the revised rules of procedure. There was clear attempt to unduly expand the provisions of Presidential Decree 902-A
b.
The inclusion of the phrase GENERAL PUBLIC OR OTHER ENTITY is a matter which HIGC cannot legally do. The rule- making power of a public administrative body is delegated legislative power, which it may not use either to abridge the authority given it by Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended.
Not unreasonable, discriminatory
unfair
or
Administrative bodies must not act arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating rules and regulations
LUPANGCO v CA 160 SCRA 848 FACTS PRC Resolution NO 105 - prohibits examinee from attending any review class or receiving any hand-out or review material 3 days before the examination day, and provides sanctions for its violation. One who is caught committing the prohibited act is barred from taking future examinations Lupo Lupangco, etal. - reviews for the licenses examinations in accountancy filed with RTC- Manila, an injunction against PRC and to declare the same unconstitutional. RTC declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. PRC appealed to CA, which reversed the deci sion of RTC. Hence, the peti tion to SC HELD
a.
PRC Resolution No 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also infringes on t he examinees’ right to li berty guaranteed by the Constitution
b.
PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. It is inconceivable how PRC can manage to have watchful eye on each and every examinee during the 3 days.
CG
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
PENAL RULES & REGULATIONS
! Refer to those carrying penal or criminal sanctions for violation of rules and regulations ! Lawmaking body cannot delegate to an administrative agency the power to declare what acts should constitute criminal offense and how shall it be punished ! Prescribing of penalties is a legislative function. However, Congress may validly provide in the law itself for the imposition of the penalty for violation of rules and regulations which it has empowered administrative authorities to enact ! Publication (15 days following completion in Official Gazette) is necessary because such rules contain penal provisions, thus, the people must be officially informed General Rule: power to punish and define crimes cannot be delegated essentially within the legislature.
legislative act cannot be delegated. WHY? Delegation of discretion = power to fill in details: NOT ALLOWED o
I
Exceptions: REQUISITES 1. 2. 3.
Law which authorizes promulgation of R&R must itself be declared as punishable the violation of rules and regulations issued thereunder Must define and fix penalty for violation of R&R Published in official gazette
Format: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Law Admin R&R Violation Imposition of Penalty QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
Definition •
Power to determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by law
•
The exercise of such power is only incidental to their main function of enforcing the law
3 Elements of Adjudicatory Powers That there must be a specific controversy involving rights of the persons or property and said controversy involving rights of persons and 1. property and said controversy is brought before a tribunal, board or officer for hearing and determination of their respective rights and obligations 2.
The tribunal, board or officer before whom the controversy is brought must have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and render a decision on the controversy construing and applying the laws to that end.
3.
The T, B, O must pertain to that branch of the sovereign power which belongs to the judiciary, or at least which does not belong to the legislative or executive department
#
CASES: President Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v CA, RTC Judge Guadiz, Karamfil Import Export Co •
•
•
•
•
•
#
Facts: PD 1936 amended by PD 2002 - assigned PADS to investigate and prosecute so-called "dollar salting" activities in the country
The application for the issuance of said search warrants was filed by Atty. Napoleon Gatmaytan of the Bureau of Customs who is a deputized member of the PADS Task Force. Attached to the said application is the affidavit of Josefin M. Castro who is an operative and investigator of the PADS Task Force. Said Josefin M. Castro is likewise the sole deponent in the purported deposition to support the application for the issuance of the six (6) search warrants involved in this case. Held: The court ruled that PADS was not granted by law to issue a warrant of arrest.
It is the basic function of these bodies to adjudicate claims and/or to determine rights, and unless its decision are seasonably appealed to the proper reviewing authorities, the same attain finality and become executory. The Task Force was not meant to exercise quasi-judicial functions, that is, to try and decide claims and execute its judgments. As the President's arm called upon to combat the vice of "dollar salting" or the black marketing and salting of foreign exchange, it is tasked alone by the Decree to handle the prosecution of such activities, but nothing more To permit him to issue search warrants and indeed, warrants of arrest, is to make him both judge and jury in his own right, when he is neither. That makes, to our mind and to that extent, Presidential Decree No. 1936 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2002, unconstitutional.
Eduardo Cojuanco Jr. v PCGG
CH
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
#
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
President Corazon C. Aquino directed the Solicitor General to prosecute all persons involved in the misuse of coconut levy funds. Pursuant to the above directive the Solicitor General created a task force to conduct a thorough study of the possible involvement of all persons in the anomalous use of coconut levy funds. Upon the creation of the PCGG under EO. 1 issued by President Aquino, the PCGG was charged with the task of assisting the President not only in the recovery of ill gotten wealth or unexplained wealth accumulated by the former President, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates but also in the investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President may assign to the Commission from time to time and to prevent a repetition of the same in the future. Petitioner alleges that the PCGG may not conduct a preliminary investigation of the complaints filed by the Solicitor General without violating petitioner's rights to due process and equal protection of the law, and that the PCGG has no right to conduct such preliminary investigation Held: Considering that the PCGG, like the courts, is vested with the authority to grant provisional remedies of (1) sequestration, (2) freezing assets, and (3) provisional takeover, it is indispensable that, as in the case of attachment and receivership, there exists a prima facie factual foundation, at least, for the sequestration order, freeze order or takeover order, an adequate and fair opportunity to contest it and endeavor to cause its negation or nullification.
The general power of investigation vested in the PCGG may be divided into two stages. The first stage of investigation which is called the criminal investigation stage is the fact finding inquiring which is usually conducted by the law enforcement agents whereby they gather evidence and interview witnesses after which they assess the evidence and if they find sufficient basis, file the complaint for the purpose of preliminary investigation. The second stage is the preliminary investigation stage of the said complaint. It is at this stage, as above discussed, where it is ascertained if there is sufficient evidence to bring a person to trial. One cannot be a prosecutor and a judge at the same time
Teodoro Santiago Jr. v Ms. Juanita Bautista •
•
•
•
•
•
Facts: The appellant was a grade 6 pupil in Sero Elementary School. As the school year was then about to end, the "Committee On the Rating Of Students For Honor" was constituted by the teachers concerned at said school for the purpose of selecting the "honor students" of its graduating class.
With the school Principal, as chairman, and the members of the committee deliberated and finally adjudged Socorro Medina, Patricia Liñgat and Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as first, second and third honors, respectively. The school's graduation exercises were thereafter set for May 21, 1965; but 3 days before that date, the "third placer" Teodoro Santiago, Jr., represented by his mother, and with his father as counsel, sought the invalidation of the "ranking of honor students" thus made, by instituting the above-mentioned civil case in the CFI of Cotabato, committee members along with the District Supervisor and the Academic Supervisor of the place. Held: It is not essential that the proceedings should be strictly and technically judicial, in the sense in which that word is used when applied to the courts of justice, but it is sufficient if they are quasi judicial. It is enough if the officers act judicially in making their decision, whatever may be their public character
It is evident, upon the foregoing authorities, that the so called committee on the rating of students for honor (Service Manual for Teachers) whose actions are questioned in this case exercised neither judicial nor quasi judicial functions in the performance of its assigned task. Nothing on record about any rule of law that provides that when teachers sit down to assess the individual merits of their pupils for purposes of rating them for honors, such function involves the determination of what the law is and that they are therefore automatically vested with judicial or quasi judicial functions. It is the nature of the act to be performed, rather than the office, board or body which performs it, that determines whether or not it is exercising judicial/quasi judicial function
3 Steps to Exercise Quasi-Judicial Power 1.
Submit position paper: to know the facts of the case
2.
Determine applicable law, know legal rights of the party
3.
Adjudication / Decision
Administrative Function vs Quasi-Judicial Function Administrative or Ministerial Quasi-Judicial Function Function - one which an officer or tribunal - one which applies to the actions, performs in the context of a given set discretion of public administrative of facts in a prescribed manner and officers or bodies that are required to
CJ
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or the impropriety of the act done
#
•
•
•
•
•
Facts: Petitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the NTC, an action for declaration of nullity of
NTC Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 (the Billing Circular). Petitioners allege that the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction belongs to the DTI under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the Billing Circular is oppressive, confiscatory and violative of the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law; that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the prepaid cell ular service by unduly prolonging t he vali dity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and cal l cards; and that the requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers and cal l balance announcement are unreasonable. Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Held: 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, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same.
The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts The administrative body exercises its quasi judicial function when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it
Pedro Guerzon v CA, Bureau of Energy Utilization, Caasi Jr., Pilipinas Shell •
•
•
•
•
•
#
investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature (Smart Comm v NTC)
CASES: Smart Communications, Pilipino Telecom v NTC •
#
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Facts: Petitioner executed with Basic Landoil Energy Corp (later acquired by Shell) a “Service Station Lease” for the use and operation of Shell’s properties (fuel pumps, air compressor) for 5 years and “Dealer’s Sales Contract”. Respondent Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) approved the latter contract and issued a Certificate of Authority in Petitioner’s favour After the contract, respondent Shell wrote Guerzon informing him that they are not renewing the contract. A copy of said letter was furnished to BEU. Thereafter, BEU issued an order directing petitioner to vacate the premises and to show cause in writing why no administrative order and/or criminal proceedings shall be instituted for his violations.
Shell was able to secure the possession of the gas station. Guerzon then filed with the RTC a complaint but such was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to annul the order of a quasi-judicial body of equivalent category as the RTC. Held: The power of an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted (here PD 1206) to it by law and those that are necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. Said PD states that after notice and hearing, it can impose and collect a fine and failure to pay the fine or to cease and discontinue the violation of the law (i.e. illegal trading in petroleum products) shall be sufficient reason for suspension, closure or stoppage of operations.
Nowhere in the order is it stated that petitioner engaged in illegal trading or any other violation of BP 33. It merely made a vague reference to “violation of BEU laws, rules and regulation”. The BEU (like its predecessor, the Oil Industry Commission) has no power to decide contractual disputes between gasoline dealers and oil companies. It cannot order petitioner to vacate the premises as this is an appropriate case in the civil courts for unlawful detainer. Assuming arguendo that it did had the authority, it still failed to comply with the requirement of notice and hearing.
Antipolo Realty Corp v NHA, Gen. Manager Tobias, Virgilio Yuson •
•
•
•
Facts: Jose Hernando acquired ownership over Lot. No. 15, Block IV of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision from the Antipolo Realty. Mr. Hernando transferred his rights over Lot No. 15 to Virgilio Yuson. However, for failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the subdivision project. Yuson paid only the arrears pertaining to the period up to, and including the month of August 1972 and stopped all monthly installments due thereafter. In October 1976, the President of AR sent a notice to Yuson advising that the required improvements in the subdivision had been completed and requesting resumption of payment of monthly instalments on Lot 15.
Yuson refused to pay the Sep 1972-Oct 1976 monthly instalments but agreed to pay the post Oct 1976 installments. AR responded by rescinding the Contract to Sell and claiming forfeiture of all instalment previously made. NHA ordered reinstatement of the CTS. AR questioned jurisdiction of NHA but it was denied. Held: NHA has jurisdiction. Admin agencies exercise and perform adjudicatory powers a nd functions, though to a limited extent only.
Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative agencies is well recognized in our jurisdiction, basically because
CK
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
the need for special competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of complex or specialized character and because of a companion recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged.
Different classification of AP with examples: memorize 1. Enabling powers •
Refer to those powers granted to permit or allow something which the law undertakes to regulate to be done by their approval.
•
The chief application of this power is in the granting or denial of licenses to engage in a particular business or occupation.
•
Examples: o o o o
2.
Directing powers
These include the powers of abstract determination – such as definition, valuation, classification and fact finding – and dispensing, examining and summary powers Examples: Corrective powers of Public Utility Commissions o Powers of assessment under the revenue and assessment laws o Reparations under Public Utility Laws o Awards under the workmen’s compensation laws o
•
•
3.
Dispensing powers
Authority to exempt from or relax a general prohibition Example: Authority of zoning boards to vary the provisions of a zoning statute or ordinance. o To relieve from an affirmative duty. Example: Authority of Public Service commission to permit the abandonment of service by carriers. o
•
•
•
•
4.
Summary powers
Those that apply compulsion or force against person or property to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such action. Usually without notice and hearing.
•
Examples:
•
o
5.
Power of the Board of Transportation to issue certificates of public convenience or necessity. Power of SEC to permit the issuance of securities Powers of Phil Patent Office to issue patents and copyrights, and register trade-marks and trade names Power of Central Bank to license Banks
Abatement of nuisance, summary destraint, levy of property of delinquent tax payers
Equitable powers •
•
Those that pertain to the power to determine the law upon a particular state of facts. It refers to the right to, and must, consider and make proper application of the rules of equity. Examples: Power to appoint a receiver, power to issue injunctions o
Chapter 5: Administrative Proceedings
Functions ! Primarily administrative and power to hear and determine controversies is granted as an incident to the administrative duty Where do they derive their powers? ! Law itself
! Art. 8, Sec. 5, par. 5 ! Necessary implication Characteristics 1. Adversary i n nature – the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it; primary purpose is to protect public interests 2. Quasi judicial or judicial a) taking and weighing of evidence
CL
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
b) determination of facts based upon evidence presented c) rendering an order or decision supported by facts presented 3. Civil, not criminal 4. Not an action at law – not a litigation 5. Rules of Court – applies suppletorily 6. Technicalities 7. SC may modify the rules 8. Quantum of proof is substantial evidence Cardinal Principles 1. Right to hearing 2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented 3. Decision must have something to support itself 4. Evidence must be substantial 5. Decision based on evidence presented 6. Board or judge must act on its own 7. Decision must be rendered in a manner that all parties can know the issues and reason for such decision
v _ CASES: Bantolino vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Ø _Court ruled that although the affiants had not been presented to affirm the contents of their affidavits and be cross-examined, their affidavits may be given evidentiary value; the argument that such affidavits were hearsay was not persuasive Ø _To reiterate, administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. Ø _A criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different from that of an administrative proceeding. Under the Rules of the Commission, the Labor Arbiter is given the discretion to determine the necessity of a formal trial or hearing. Ø _Hence, trial-type hearings are not even required as the cases may be decided based on verified position papers, with supporting documents and their affidavits Lepanto Cosolidated vs. Dumapis Ø _Evidence is not substantial to hold respondents guilty of highgrading so as to warrant the dismissal of respondents.
Ø _While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value. Ø _Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Ø _Thus, even though technical rules of evidence are not strictly complied with before the LA and the NLRC, their decision must be based on evidence that must, at the very least, be substantial. Hierarchy of Evidentiary values of Quantum of Proof 1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt – requires moral certainty or such degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind 2. Clear and convincing evidence – more stringent standard that requires the allegation to be proven to the firm belief or satisfaction of the trier of fact 3. Preponderance of evidence – the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence of one is superior to the other; greater weight of evidence
DM
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
4. Substantial evidence Quantum of proof: Admin proceedings ! Substantial evidence – It is more than a mere scintilla. It mea ns such relevant evidence t hat a reasonable mind might a ccept as adequate t o support a conclusion Administrative Due Process
! Right to due process is a constitutional right ! It is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, and to submit any evidence a party may have in support of his defense
! The demands of due process are met when parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered ! Administrative agencies are not bound by technical rules of evidence and procedure Requisites: 1. Right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that may affect a person’s legal right
2. Right to reasonable opportunity to appear personally or with the assistance of counsel and defend his rights and to introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favour, by testi mony or otherwise, and to controvert the evidence of the other party 3. Right to a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction, so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality 4. Right to a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing or at least ascertained in the records, or disclosed or made known to the parties affected CASES: Villa vs. Lazaro
Ø There was absolutely no excuse for initiating what is held out as an administrative proceeding against Villa without informing her of the complaint which initiated the case Ø It was thus not even necessary for petitioner to bring that document to the notice of the Commission which, together with Commissioner Dizon, was chargeable with knowledge of its own workings and of all acts done in the performance of duty by its officials and employees. Petitioner is plainly the victim of either gross ignorance or negligence or a buse of power, or a combination of both. Ø All of the foregoing translate to a denial of due process against which the defense of failure to take timely appeal will not avail. Ø Some of those essential elements did not obtain or were not present in the proceedings complained of, any judgment rendered, or order issued, therein was null and void, could never become final, and could be attacked in any appropriate proceeding. Paterok vs. Bureau of Customs Ø The Court agrees with the petitioner that a notice of hearing posted on the bulletin board of the public respondent in a forfeiture proceeding where the owner of the alleged prohibited article is known does not constitute sufficient compliance with proper service of notice and procedural due process.
Ø Facts evidently show that the petitioner could not have been unknown. The petitioner had previous transactions with the Bureau of Customs and in fact, the latter had earlier released the first container consisting of household goods and the Bourgetti car to the former at her address (as stated in the Bill of Lading). Ø If only the public respondents had exercised some reasonable diligence to ascertain from their own records the identity and address of the petitioner as the owner and the consignee of the property in question, the necessary information could have been easily obtained which would have assured the sending of the notice of hearing properly and legally. Then, the petitioner would have been afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present her defense which is the essence of procedural due process. But the public respondent regrettably failed to perform such basic duty. Lumiqued vs. Exevea Ø While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s capacity to represent himself and no duty rests on such a body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel.
Ø In an administrative proceeding such as the one that transpired below, a respondent (such as Lumiqued) has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not. Ø Thus, the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
DC
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Ø _As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. Globe Telecom vs. NTC Ø Every party subject to administrative regulation deserves an opportunity to know, through reasonable regulations promulgated by the agency, of the objective standards that have to be met. Such rule is integral to due process, as it protects substantive rights.
Ø Globe and Smart were denied opportunity to present evidence on the issues relat ing to the nature of VAS and the prior approval. Until the promulgation of the assailed Order Globe and Smart were never informed of the fact that their operation of SMS without prior authority was at all an issue for consideration. As a result, neither Globe or Smart was afforded an opportunity to present evidence in their behalf on that point. Ø NTC violated several of these cardinal rights due Globe in the promulgation of the assailed Order. The NTC Order is not supported by substantial evidence. Neither does it sufficiently explain the reasons for the decision rendered. Casimiro vs. Tandog Ø “To be heard” does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there i s no denial of procedural due process.
Ø Neither are we persuaded by petitioner’s argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the complainants were never presented for cross examination. In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense. Ø The law requires that the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion Ø Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial proof is sufficient basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon an employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS Period required in rendering decision Within 30 days following submission •
Section 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
The agency shall decide each case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to them. Section 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected.
One motion for reconsideration may be file d, which shall suspend the running of the said period.
Format of decision No prescribed form •
•
•
But Sec. 14 Revised Admin Code states that: decision must be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based No verbal decision
Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction Doctrine of PRIOR RESORT •
•
Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal
•
Such question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge and expertise
•
Judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to an administrative body
What are the Limitations on Prior Resort? •
Doctrine does not apply in relation to a question where the following circumstances concur: a)
What is involved is not a question of fact, but one of pure law ;
DD
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 b) c) # # # # #
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
The question is determinable apart from the exercise of administrative discretion (meaning admin discretion is not essential to the determination of the question.) Requisite uniformity of determination is attainable otherwise than by confining determination of the question to the admin tribunal.
CASES: Villaflor v. CA Comm. Of Customs v. Navarro Centeno v. Centeno Nuesa v. CA Regional Dir., Region 7 DECS v. CA SC: the issuance of the restraining order of the lower court was out of place o
Doctrine of Exhaustion Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted •
•
An administrative decision must be appealed to the administrative superior up to the highest level before elevating it to the Court for review
•
Only applicable when there is competence on the part of the agency to act on the matter complained of
•
Doctrine need not be observed when it is not expressly required by law or when the statute providing for the administrative remedy is merely permissive
General rule: Failure to exhaust administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action which is one of the grounds for dismissal (Rules of Court). The case may also be dismissed for failure to comply with condition precedent, which may be invoked in a motion to dismiss.
Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedy: PPPNNNQCISE EXCEPTION CASE When administrative remedy is Corpus v Cuaderno 1 permissive only
o o
o
o o
2
Issue involved is purely legal question of law
Madrigal v Lecaroz
o o
o
3
Involves patently illegal act of administrative body
Cabada v Alunan
o o
o
o
4
No administrative order yet N
Datiles and Co. v Sucaldito
o o o
o
5
No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law N
NFA v CA
o
o
o
o
CASE DOCTRINE When administrative remedy is permissive only Contested dismissal with courts, the Central Bank contends that the Civil Service Rule shall apply. SC said that officers of the CB are subject to civil service rules and regulations but Central Bank Law provides an option to be dismissed whether to appeal decision to CSC or to the courts. Use of “may” makes it permissive to go to CSC or courts Rationale: permissive. So choice is yours. Whether to go to court or not. Issue involved is purely legal question of law Issue: whether the Capatas because of lack of funds involves pure question of law? Rationale: When a thing involves a question of law is useless to continue to avail remedies because whatever the admin body does because it will never gain finality. Power to interpret the law is essentially a judicial prerogative. Involves patently illegal act of administrative body Dismissed for scalawags in uniform by the RD of PNP should have appealed to Secretary of DILG and then forwarded to PNP Commission Only one commissioner decided so they went to OP. Patently illegal act of commissioner. Supposed to be collegial body. Rationale: when involves patently illegal, administrative office/body acting ultra vires. Acts in excess of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction then can go to the courts Ripeness for review No administrative order yet No order has yet been issued by AB or AO there is nothing yet to review To protect interest and no basis: go to trial courts No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Went through the process, but on the bidding day there was already a pre-fixed contract for a fixed bidder. Which department has jurisdiction over NFA? Department of Agriculture Greenview and other Security services went directly to SC: no need because the bringing of the case to the court and there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy to protect their rights
DE
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
567!-3 89:69;98 o
o
6
Result to nullification of claim being ascertained N
Gravador v Mamigo
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
7
When the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency is applicable (Sec. is the alter ego of the Pres.; Q
Almine v CA
o
o o
o
o
o
8
Issue raised is the constitutionality of the statute under which administrative agency acts C
Smart v NTC
o
o
o
9
Result to irreparable injury/damage to a party unless resort to the court is immediately made I
o
o
o
o
o
Strong public interest is involved S
Arrow Transport v BOT
o o o o
o
11
When there is Estoppel on the part of the party E
NFA said they had to exhaust administrative remedies BUT SC said no need. Because of the urgency of the situation Result to nullification of claim being ascertained Director of Public Schools forced him to retire because he was not believed to be of the age he is claiming Gravador file a quo warranto with the court, the Director of PS contended that there should be exhaustion Under the ROC, the right to file a quo warranto expires in one year from illegaly dismissed MR has been pending for 8 months so 4 month left for him to file quo warranto proceedings Filing of the MR does not stop the prescriptive period in the quo warranto If he waits for decision of Director of PS, it will result to nullification of claim Rationale: because time is of the essence When the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency is applicable Secretaries are alter egos of President Safe to assume that what the Cabinet does is also the decision of the President Minister of Agrarian reform has not been given to the OP, because it was presumed that the president knows BUT in practice, always exhaust remedies elevate the matter to the OP. Rationale: when Doctrine is applicable, useless to go to president because it will be a redundant exercise Issue raised is the constitutionality of the statute under which administrative agency acts If what is assailed is a rules or regulation or circular in the exercise of QJ or RM power the doctrine of exhaustion does not apply What is involved is the constitutionality this is a judicial prerogative therefore courts cannot be deprived of their decision
UP v BOR
o
10
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
Tan v Veterans
o o
o
o
o
o
o
Result to irreparable injury/damage to a party unless resort to the court is immediately made Director of PGH appointed for a fixed term, and the UP Board of Regents decided to reorganize PGH Dr. Estrella had a reason to be aggrieved by decision, the problem is he did not contest the reorganization to the UP Board of Regents UP Board of Regents created a nomination committee, and when applicants are already qualified and Estrella will be replaced So since the court sees that the Estrella will be aggrieved, court allowed him to file immediately Rationale: innate in every human or living thing the right of self preservation so if it will result in injury or damage so it can be brought to the court Strong public interest is involved Arrow given franchise to operate taxi in Cebu. Sultan was given a provisional franchise SC: yes remedy is still applicable but it got flattered that it went directly to SC and there is a strong public interest involved SC knew that BOT made money out of the franchise When there is Estoppel on the part of the party Served war but not part of the members of the AFP so no veterans compensation In the Hauge convention, in terms of war whoever is the aggressor and loses in the war will pay. VBC said Chinese husband so no compensation, but wife said that DOJ said that it does not distinguish But VBC said that DOJ was merely advisory and does not bind us to adapt these opinions so you can go to court Then when Mrs. Tan said went to court then VBC said that she cannot go to court because there are still remedies Rationale: Estoppel is all owed because your agency is bound by your actions
DF
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4
# #
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
CASES: Laguna CATV Network v. Maraan
Ripeness for Review Judicial machinery should be conserved for problems which are real and present or imminent and should not be squandered on problems which are future or remote •
•
•
An issue is normally ripe for judicial determination when interests of the plaintiff are subjected to or imminently threatened with substantial injury Ex. When plaintiff is substantially harmed by the vagueness of the statute
What are questions open for Review? Questions of Law • •
When do we determine? Arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts o
Ex: Jurisdiction, Procedures
•
Rule: Admin agencies determine facts of controversy and apply it
•
Reviewing court: determine if correct rule is applied and if there is enough evidence
Questions of Fact When the doubt / falsity arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts •
•
No case is exactly the same case
•
Rule: Finding of fact of admin agencies are conclusive upon court; supported by substantial evidence
•
3 Requisites when QF becomes conclusive o
Supported by SE
o
Involve matter which refers to doubt or differences as to the doubt / falsity of the alleged facts
o
•
Not subject to review by courts
Exceptions: o
Allowed by law
o
Fraud, imposition or mistake or error other than error in judgment is involved
o
Error in application of pleadings and interpretation of evidence
Mixed (Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts) Both of QL and QF •
•
Where what purports to be a finding upon question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a question of law (as to be in substance and effect a decision on the latter, the Court will, in order to decide the legal question, examine the entire record, including the evidence if necessary as it does in cases coming from the highest court of the State) Example: Whether a thing is considered nuisance o
If it is nuisance then the action is considered as summary, no need to comply with due process of notice and hearing
o
If it was a nuisance: time is of the essence !
Example: if a building is on the verge of collapsing then it can be demolished without notifying the owner or subjecting to hearing in summary
DG
!"#$%$&'()'$*+ -). / !''01 21 34($)%4 ! !
o
567!-3 89:69;98
<)=)#>)%?$)'4@+%"4A)@+B=)(
If the owner does not want it then the demolish expenses will be at the expense of the owner Nuisance is a question of fact but also a question of law since there is no hearing
If both concurs what prevails? !
GENERAL RULE: question of fact is not subject to review, while question of law is subject to review •
EXCEPTION: since a reviewing court may review the question of law and the question of fact is merely attached to it, then the reviewing body may review not only the question of law but also question of fact, since it cannot be entirely divorced from the issue. Question of fact is subsumed in the question of law thus the reviewing court has jurisdiction
•
Falsity or truthfulness of fact and law (ex. Determination whether a thing is a nuisance)
•
Rule: Courts cannot review findings of admin body
•
Exception: Courts can review and substitute judgment
•
Under this doctrine, the more important question assimilates the other.
DH
