UST Golden Notes - Administrative Law

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 J. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW a. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Q: Define Administrative Law? A: It is a branch of public law fixing the organization and determines the competence of administrative authorities, and indicates the individual remedies for the violation of the rights. Q: What are the kinds of Administrative Law? A: 1. Statutes setting up administrative authorities. 2. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities. 3. Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative authorities in pursuance of the purposes, for which administrative authorities were created or endowed. 4. Determinations, decisions, and orders of such administrative authorities in the settlement of controversies arising in their particular field. b. CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AND AGENCIES Q: What is an administrative agency? A: It is an organ of government, other than a court and the legislature, which affects the rights of private parties either through adjudication or rule making. Q: How are agencies created? A: By: 1. Constitutional provision 2. Authority of law 3. Legislative enactment Q: Cite reasons for the creation of administrative agencies. A: To: 1. Help unclog court dockets 2. mMeet the growing complexities of modern society 3. Help in the regulation of ramified activities of a developing country 4. Entrust to specialized agencies the task of dealing with problems as they have

146

the experience, expertise, and power of dispatch to provide solution thereto. Q: What is an instrumentality? A: An instrumentality refers to any agency of the national government not integrated within the departmental framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. (Iron and Steel Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 102976, Oct. 25, 1995) Q: What is an Agency? A: An agency is any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the national government, authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to licensing functions; government corporations with respect to functions regulating private rights, privileges, occupation or business, and officials in the exercise of the disciplinary powers as provided by law. Q: What is the distinction between the two? A: There is no practical distinction between an instrumentality and agency, for all intents and purposes. A distinction, however, may be made with respect to those entities possessing a separate charter created by statute. Q: What is a quasi‐judicial body or agency? A: A quasi‐judicial body or agency is an administrative body with the power to hear, determine or ascertain facts and decide rights, duties and obligations of the parties by the application of rules to the ascertained facts. By this power, quasi‐judicial agencies are enabled to interpret and apply implementing rules and regulations promulgated by them and laws entrusted to their administration. (2006 Bar Question) c. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES Q: What are the three basic powers of administrative agencies? A: 1. Quasi‐legislative power or rule‐making power

POLITICAL LAW TEAM: ADVISER: ATTY. EDWIN REY SANDOVAL; SUBJECT HEAD: RACHEL MARIE L. FELICES; ASST. SUBJECT HEADS: WIVINO E. BRACERO II & HERAZEUS CHRISTINE Y. UY; MEMBERS : LAWRENCE PAULO H. AQUINO, LEANDRO RODEL V. ATIENZA, MARINETH EASTER AN D. AYOS, CARLO R. BALA, WILFREDO T. BONILLA, JR., KEEL ACHERNAR R. DINOY, APRIL V. ENRILE, KENNETH JAMES CARLO C. HIZON, JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA, ROGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES, ROMILINDA C. SIBAL, JASMIN M. SISON, ZARAH PATRICIA T. SUAREZ, RALPH JULIOUS L. VILLAMOR.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2. 3.

Quasi‐judicial or adjudicatory power Determinative power

Q: Distinguish between quasi‐legislative and quasi‐judicial power. A: QUASI‐LEGISLATIVE Operates on the future Has general application Issuance pursuant to the exercise of quasi‐ legislative power may be assailed in court without subscribing to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (DEAR). A valid exercise of quasi‐ legislative power does not require prior notice and hearing (except when the law requires it). An issuance pursuant to the exercise of quasi‐ legislative power may be assailed in court through an ordinary action.

QUASI‐JUDICIAL Operates based on past facts Has particular application (applies only to the parties involved in a dispute) Issuance pursuant to the exercise of quasi‐ judicial power may, as a rule, only be challenged in court with prior exhaustion of administrative remedies. A valid exercise of quasi‐judicial power requires prior notice and hearing (except when the law requires it) An issuance pursuant to the exercise of quasi‐ judicial function is appealed to the Court of Appeals via petition for review (Rule 43).

1. Quasi‐Legislative (Rule‐Making) Power Q: Define quasi‐legislative power. A: This is the exercise of delegated legislative power, involving no discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself. Q: What are the kinds of quasi‐legislative power? A: 1. Legislative regulation 2. Supplementary or detailed legislation which is intended to fill in the details of the law and to make explicit what is only general. e.g. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. 3. Contingent legislation in which administrative agencies are allowed to ascertain the existence of particular contingencies and on the basis thereof

4.

enforce or suspend the operation of a law. Interpretative legislation – rules and regulations construing or interpreting the provisions of a statute to be enforced and binding on all concerned until changed. They have the effect of law and are entitled to great respect having in their favor the presumption of legality. E.g. BIR circulars.

Q: What are the requisites for the valid exercise of quasi‐legislative power? A: 1. Promulgated in accordance with the Prescribed procedure. 2. Reasonable. 3. Issued under Authority of law. 4. Administrative regulations, issued for the purpose of implementing existing law, pursuant to a valid delegation are included in the term “laws” under Article 2, of the Civil Code and must therefore be published in order to be effective. 5. It must be within the Scope and purview of the law. 6. Filing with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center Note: But mere interpretative regulations, and those merely internal in nature, i.e. regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published (Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, December 29, 1986)

Q: What are the guidelines to rule‐making? A: 1. It must be consistent with the law and the constitution 2. It must have reasonable relationship to the purpose of the law 3. It must be within the limits of the power granted to administrative agencies 4. May not amend, alter, modify, supplant, enlarge, limit or nullify the terms of the law 5. It must be uniform in operation, reasonable and not unfair or discriminatory 6. Must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure Q: What are the limitations on the exercise of quasi‐legislative power?

ACADEMICS CHAIR: LESTER JAY ALAN E. FLORES II U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S VICE CHAIRS FOR ACADEMICS: KAREN JOY G. SABUGO & JOHN HENRY C. MENDOZA Facultad de Derecho Civil V ICE CHAIR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE: JEANELLE C. LEE VICE CHAIRS FOR LAY‐OUT AND DESIGN: EARL LOUIE M. MASACAYAN & THEENA C. MARTINEZ

147

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 A: 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

It must be within the limits of the powers granted to administrative agencies. Cannot make rules or regulations which are inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution or statute. Cannot defeat the purpose of the statute. May not amend, alter, modify, supplant, enlarge, or limit the terms of the statute. A rule or regulation must be uniform in operation, reasonable and not unfair or discriminatory.

Q: May an administrative agency promulgate rules providing for penal sanction? A: Yes, provided the following requisites are complied with: 1. The law must declare the act punishable; 2. The law must define the penalty; 3. The rules must be published in the Official Gazette. (The Hon. Secretary Vincent S. Perez v. LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 159149, June 26, 2006) Q: Are administrative officers tasked to implement the law also authorized to interpret the law? A: Yes, because they have expertise to do so. (PLDT v. NTC, G.R. No. 88404, Oct. 18, 1990) Q: Are constructions of administrative officers binding upon the courts? A: Such interpretations of administrative officer are given great weight, unless such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp contrast with the governing law or statute. (Nestle Philippines Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 86738, Nov. 13, 1991) Q: What is the Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation? A: Power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations on matters within their own specialization. Q: What is the reason behind the delegation? A: It is well established in this jurisdiction that, while the making of laws is a non‐delegable activity that corresponds exclusively to Congress,

148

nevertheless the latter may constitutionally delegate authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason that the legislature often finds it impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conform to the standards that the law prescribes. Q: What are the limitations on the doctrine of subordinate legislation? A: 1. Rule making power 2. Cannot contravene a statute or the constitution 3. Partakes the nature of a statute – Rules are not laws but have the force and effect of laws. 4. Enjoys the presumption of legality – therefore courts should respect and apply them unless declared invalid; all other agencies should likewise respect them. Q: What is the concept of Contemporaneous Construction? A: The construction placed upon the statute by an executive or administrative officer called upon to execute or administer such statute. These interpretative regulations are usually in the form of circulars, directives, opinions, and rulings. Note: Contemporaneous construction, while in no case binding upon the courts, is nevertheless entitled to great weight and respect in the interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the law, unless it is shown to be clearly erroneous.

2. Quasi‐Judicial (Adjudicatory) Power Q: Define quasi‐judicial power. A: It is the power of administrative authorities to make determinations of facts in the performance of their official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts so found. It partakes the nature of judicial power, but is exercised by a person other than a judge.


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Q: How is the jurisdiction of a quasi‐judicial agency construed? A: An administrative body to which quasi‐judicial power has been delegated is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and as such it could wield only such powers as are specifically granted to it by its enabling statute. Its jurisdiction is interpreted strictissimi juris. 2.a. Administrative Due Process Q: What is the nature of administrative proceedings? A: It is summary in nature. Q: Is administrative proceedings bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence? A: The technical rules of procedure and of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in administrative proceedings to free administrative boards or agencies from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate an administrative order. Note: The rules of procedure of quasi‐judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Q: What are the cardinal primary requirements of due process in administrative proceedings? A: 1. Right to a hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support 2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented 3. The decision must be supported by evidence 4. Such evidence must be substantial 5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record, and disclosed to the parties affected 6. The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy in arriving at a decision; 7. The board or body should render decision that parties know the various issues involved and reason for such decision

8.

Officer or tribunal must be vested with competent jurisdiction and must be impartial and honest. (Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L‐46496, Feb. 27, 1940)

Note: The essence of procedural due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to be heard, i.e. the opportunity to explain one’s side or opportunity to seek reconsideration of an adverse decision. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard.

Q: Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel during an administrative inquiry? A: No. The right to counsel which may not be waived, unless in writing and in the presence of counsel, as recognized by the Constitution, is a right of a suspect in a custodial investigation. It is not an absolute right and may, thus, be invoked or rejected in criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an administrative inquiry. (Lumiqued v. Exevea, G.R No.. 117565, Nov. 18, 1997) Q: What is the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings? A: Only substantial evidence – that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Q: When is the requirement of notice and hearing not necessary? A: 1. Urgency of immediate action 2. Tentativeness of administrative action 3. Grant or revocation of licenses or permits to operate certain businesses affecting public order or morals 4. Summary abatement of nuisance per se which affects safety of persons or property 5. Preventive suspension of public officer or employee facing administrative charges 6. Cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution 7. Summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon property of a delinquent taxpayer 8. Replacement of a temporary or acting appointee 9. Right was previously offered but not claimed


149

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 2.b. Administrative Appeal and Review Q: What is the concept of Administrative Appeal? A: It refers to the review by a higher agency of decisions rendered by an administrative agency, commenced by petition of an interested party. Note: Administrative appeals are established by the 1987 Administrative Code, which will govern primarily in the absence of a specific law applicable. Under the 1987 Administrative Code, administrative appeals from a decision of an agency are taken to the Department Head.

Q: What is the concept of administrative review? A: Administrative appeals are not the only way by which a decision of an administrative agency may be reviewed. A superior officer or department head may upon his or her own volition review a subordinate’s decision pursuant to the power of control. Administrative reviews by a superior officer are, however, subject to the caveat that a final and executory decision is not included within the power of control, and hence can no longer be altered by administrative review. Q: How may administrative decisions be enforced? A: It may be enforced. 1. As provided for by law 2. May invoke the courts intervention 2.c. Administrative Res Judicata Q: Does the doctrine of res judicata apply to administrative proceedings? A: The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non litigious and summary in nature; hence, res judicata does not apply. 3. Licensing, Rate‐Fixing and Fact‐Finding Powers Q: What is Licensing Power? A: The action of an administrative agency in granting or denying, or in suspending or revoking, a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of public

150

convenience and necessity. Administrative Law, 2010)

(De

Leon,

Q: What is the nature of an administrative agency’s act if it is empowered by a statute to revoke a license for non‐compliance or violation of agency regulations? A: For procedural purposes, an administrative action is not a purely administrative act if it is dependent upon the ascertainment of facts by the administrative agency. Where a statute empowers an agency to revoke a license for non‐compliance with or violation of agency regulations, the administrative act is of a judicial nature, since it depends upon the ascertainment if the existence of certain past or present facts upon which a decision is to be made and rights and liabilities determined.

Q: Define Rate‐Fixing Power. A: It is the power usually delegated by the legislature to administrative agencies for the latter to fix the rates which public utility companies may charge the public. (De Leon, Administrative Law, 2010) Q: What does the term “rate” mean? A: It means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms, including individual or joint rates, tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as well as communication, mileage, kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law or regulation to be observed and followed by a person. Note: Fixing rates is essentially legislative but may be delegated. (Philippine Inter‐Island v. CA, G.R. No. 100481, January 22, 1997)

Q: How is rate‐fixing power performed? A: The administrative agencies perform this function either by issuing rules and regulations in the exercise of their quasi‐legislative power or by issuing orders affecting a specified person in the exercise of its quasi‐judicial power. (De Leon, Administrative Law, 2010) Q: May the function of fixing rates be either a legislative or adjudicative function? A: Yes. The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a legislative or and adjudicative function. (De Leon, Administrative Law, 2010)


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Q: If the power to fix rates is exercised as a legislative function, are notice and hearing required? A: Where the rules and/or rates laid down are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country, they may partake of a legislative character. If the fixing of rates were a legislative function, the giving of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due process, except where the legislature itself requires it. (De Leon, Administrative Law, 2010) Q: What if it is exercised as a quasi‐judicial function? A: Where the rules and the rate imposed apply exclusively to a particular party, based upon a finding of fact, then its function is quasi‐judicial in character. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi‐judicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates. But an administrative agency may be empowered by law to approve provisionally, when demanded by urgent public need, rates of public utilities without a hearing. (De Leon, Administrative Law, 2010) Note: As a general rule, notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of an administrative action where the administrative body acts in the exercise of executive, administrative, or legislative functions; but where a public administrative body acts in a judicial or quasi‐judicial matter, and its acts are particular and immediate rather than general and prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice and hearing. (Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v Secretary of DECS, G.R. No. 78385, August 31, 1987)

Q: In case of a delegation of rate‐fixing power, what is the only standard which the legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of administrative authority? A: That the rate be reasonable and just. (American Tobacco Co. v Director of Patents, 67 SCRA 287, 1975) Q: In the absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness, may the standard be implied? A: Yes. In any case, the rates must both be non‐ confiscatory and must have been established in

the manner prescribed by the legislature. Even in the absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied. A rate‐fixing order, temporary or provisional though it may be, is not exempt from the procedural requirements of notice and hearing when prescribed by statute, as well as the requirement of reasonableness. (De Leon, Administrative Law 2010, pp. 164‐165) Q: May the delegated power to fix rates be re‐ delegated? A: The power delegated to an administrative agency to fix rates cannot, in the absence of a law authorizing it, be delegated to another. This is experessed in the maxim, potestas delagata non delegari protest. (Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., 39 SCRA386, 1994) Q: May congress delegate to an administrative agency the power to ascertain facts as basis to determine when a law may take into effect or whether a law may be suspended or come to an end, in accordance with the purpose or policy of the law and the standard for the exercise of the power delegated? A: Yes. This is not delegation of what the law shall be, but how the law will be enforced, which is permissible. Hence the legislature may delegate to an administrative agency the power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend, or the law may provide that it shall become operative only upon the contingency or some certain fact or event, the ascertainment of which is left to an administrative agency. (1 Am. Jur. 2d 930‐931) Q: What are the requirements for the delegation of the power to ascertain facts to be valid? A: The law delegating the power to determine some facts or state of things upon which the law may take effect or its operation suspended must provide the standard, fix the limits within which the discretion may be exercised, and define the conditions therefor. Absent these requirements, the law and the rules issued thereunder are void, the former being an undue delegation of legislative power and the latter being the exercise if rule‐making without legal basis. (U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1, 1992) Q: In connection with the evidence presented before a fact‐finding quasi judicial body, do the latter have a power to take into consideration


151

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 the result of its own observation and investigation of the matter submitted to it for decision? A: A fact‐finding quasi‐judicial body (e.g., Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board) whose decisions (on questions regarding certificated of public convenience) are influenced not only by the facts as disclosed by the evidence in the case before it but also by the reports of its field agents and inspectors that are periodically submitted to it, has the power to take into consideration the result of its own observation and investigation of the matter submitted to it for decision, in connection with other evidence presented at the hearing of the case (Pantranco South Express, Inc. v Board of Transportaion, 191 SCRA 581,1991) 4. Determinative Powers Q: Define determinative powers. A: It is the power of administrative agencies to better enable them to exercise their quasi‐judicial authority. Q: What consisted determinative powers? A: DEDE_S 1. Enabling – Permits the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate and which would be unlawful without government approval. 2. Directing – Orders the doing or performance of particular acts to ensure the compliance with the law and are often exercised for corrective purposes. 3. Dispensing – To relax the general operation of a law or to exempt from general prohibition, or to relieve an individual or a corporation from an affirmative duty. 4. Examining – This is also called investigatory power. It requires production of books, papers, etc., the attendance of witnesses and compelling their testimony. 5. Summary – Power to apply compulsion or force against persons or property to effectuate a legal purpose without judicial warrants to authorize such actions.

152

d. JUDICIAL RECOURSE AND REVIEW 1. Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction Q: What is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or doctrine of prior resort? A: Under the principle of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving question within the jurisdiction of an administrative body prior to the decision of that question by the administrative tribunal where: 1. The question demands administrative determination requiring special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal; 2. The question requires determination of technical and intricate issues of a fact; 3. The uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with purposes of the regulatory statute administered Note: In such instances, relief must first be obtained in administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. The judicial process is accordingly suspended pending referral of the claim to the administrative agency for its view.

Q: What are the reasons for this doctrine? A: 1. To take full advantage of administrative expertness; and 2. To attain uniformity of application of regulatory laws which can be secured only if determination of the issue is left to the administrative body Q: When is the doctrine inapplicable? A: 1. When, by the court's determination, the legislature did not intend that the issues be left solely to the initial determination of the administrative body. 2. When the issues involve purely questions of law. 3. When courts and administrative bodies have concurrent jurisdiction.


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Q: Can the court motu proprio raise the issue of primary jurisdiction? A: The court may motu proprio raise the issue of primary jurisdiction and its invocation cannot be waived by the failure of the parties to argue it, as the doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power between judicial and administrative bodies and not for the convenience of the parties. In such case the court may: 1. Suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its review, or 2. If the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudiced. (Euro‐Med laboratories Phil. vs. Province of Batangas, G.R No. 148706, July 17, 2006) 2. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Q: What is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? A: This doctrine calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction and must first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest level before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. Note: The premature invocation of the courts intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite for judicial review; it is a condition precedent which must be complied with.

Q: What are the reasons for exhausting administrative remedies? A: 1. To enable the administrative superiors to correct the errors committed by their subordinates. 2. Courts should refrain from disturbing the findings of administrative bodies in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers. 3. Courts should not be saddled with the review of administrative cases. 4. Judicial review of administrative cases is usually effected through special civil actions which are available only if there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

5.

To avail of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Q: What are the exceptions to the application of the doctrine? A: DELILA PULP MUN Q 1. Violation of Due process 2. When there is Estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned 3. When the issue involved is a purely Legal question 4. When there is Irreparable injury 5. When the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to Lack or excess of jurisdiction 6. When the respondent is a Department Secretary whose acts as an Alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter 7. When the subject matter is a Private land case proceedings 8. When it would be Unreasonable 9. When no administrative review is provided by Law 10. When the rule does not provide a Plain, speedy, and adequate remedy 11. When the issue of non‐exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered Moot 12. When there are circumstances indicating the Urgency of judicial intervention 13. When it would amount to a Nullification of a claim; and 14. Where the rule of Qualified political agency applies. (Laguna CATV Network v. Maraan, G.R. No. 139492, Nov. 19, 2002) Q: What is the effect of non‐exhaustion of administrative remedies? A: It will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion of dismiss. Q: Is non‐compliance with the doctrines of primary jurisdiction or exhaustion of administrative remedies a jurisdictional defect? A: No. Non‐compliance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional for the defect may be waived by a failure to assert the same at the earliest opportune time.


153

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 Q: Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. A:

GR: Courts will not disturb the findings of administrative agencies acting within the parameters of their own competence, special knowledge, expertise, and experience. The courts ordinarily accord respect if not finality to factual findings of administrative tribunals. XPN: If findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Both deal with the proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies. Applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the administrative agency

Applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone

Although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative case

Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has been completed

3. Doctrine of Ripeness for Review Q: What is the Doctrine of Ripeness for Review? A: This doctrine is the similar to that of exhaustion of administrative remedies except that it applies to the rule making and to administrative action which is embodied neither in rules and regulations nor in adjudication or final order. Q: When does the doctrine apply? A: VICS 1. When the Interest of the plaintiff is subjected to or imminently threatened with substantial injury. 2. If the statute is Self‐executing. 3. When a party is immediately confronted with the problem of complying or violating a statute and there is a risk of Criminal penalties. 4. When plaintiff is harmed by the Vagueness of the statute. Q: What are the questions reviewable by the courts? A: 1. Questions of fact

Questions of Law – administrative decisions may be appealed to the courts independently of legislative permission. It may be appealed even against legislative prohibition because the judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions on questions of law.

3.

Mixed ( law and fact) – when there is a mixed question of law and fact and the court cannot separate the elements to see clearly what and where the mistake of law is, such question is treated as question of fact for purposes of review and the courts will not ordinarily review the decision of the administrative tribunal.

154

2.

4. Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action Q: What is the doctrine of finality of administrative action? A: This doctrine provides that no resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been completed and there is nothing left to be done in the administrative structure. Q: What are the instances where the doctrine finds no application? A: DEAR – PIA 1. To grant relief to Preserve the status quo pending further action by the administrative agency 2. When it is Essential to the protection of the rights asserted from the injuries threatened 3. Where an administrative officer Assumes to act in violation of the Constitution and other laws 4. Where such order is not Reviewable in any other way and the complainant will


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

5. 6.

7.

suffer great and obvious damage if the order is carried out To an Interlocutory order affecting the merits of a controversy To an order made in excess of power, contrary to specific prohibition in the statute governing the agency and thus operating as a Deprivation of a right assured by the statute When review is Allowed by statutory provisions.

Q: What are the grounds for reversal of administrative findings? A: 1. Finding is grounded on speculations or conjectures 2. Inferences made are manifestly mistaken or impossible 3. Grave abuse of discretion 4. Misapprehension of facts, or the agency overlooked certain facts of substance or value which if considered would affect the result of the case. 5. Agency went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of the parties or the presented 6. Irregular procedures or the violation of the due process 7. Rights of a party were prejudiced because the findings were in violation of the constitution, or in excess of statutory authority, vitiated by fraud, mistake 8. Findings not supported by substantial evidence 5. Judicial Relief from Threatened Administrative Action Q: Can courts render a a decree in advance of administrative action? A: Courts will not render a decree in advance of administrative action. Such action would be rendered nugatory. It is not for the court to stop an administrative officer from performing his statutory duty for fear that he will perform it wrongly. 6. Judicial Review of Administrative Action Q: What is the concept of judicial review?

A: Judicial review is the re‐examination or determination by the courts in the exercise of their judicial power in an appropriate case instituted by a party aggrieved thereby as to whether the questioned act, rule, or decision has been validly or invalidly issued or whether the same should be nullified, affirmed or modified. Note: The mere silence of the law does not necessarily imply that judicial review is unavailable.

Q: What are the requisites of judicial review of administrative action? A: 1. Administrative action must have been completed (“the principle of finality of administrative action;”) and 2. Administrative remedies must have been exhausted known as (“the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.”) Q: What are the limitations on judicial review? A: 1. Final and executory decisions cannot be made the subject of judicial review. 2. Administrative acts involving a political question are beyond judicial review, except when there is an allegation that there has been grave abuse of discretion. 3. Courts are generally bound by the findings of fact of an administrative agency. Q: Is the rule that findings of facts by administrative agencies are binding on the courts subject to any exceptions? A: GR: Yes. XPN: FIPE – GES 1. Findings are vitiated by Fraud, imposition, or collusion 2. Procedure which led to factual findings is Irregular 3. Palpable errors are committed 4. Factual findings not supported by Evidence 5. Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness is manifest 6. When expressly allowed by Statute; and 7. Error in appreciation of the pleadings and in the interpretation of the documentary evidence presented by the parties


155

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 Q: What are the grounds which would warrant the reversal of administrative finding? A: MIGS – VIBE 1. Misapprehension of facts, or the agency overlooked certain facts of substance or value which if considered would affect the result of the case 2. Interferences made are manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible 3. Grave abuse of discretion 4. Finding is grounded on Speculations, surmises, or conjectures 5. Rights of the parties were prejudiced because the findings were in Violation of the constitution, or in excess of statutory authority, vitiated by fraud, or mistake 6. Irregular procedures or violations of due process 7. Agency went Beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of the parties or the evidence presented 8. Findings not supported by substantial Evidence.

156


UST Golden Notes - Administrative Law

Recommend Documents