ADMIN LAW MIDTERMS COMPILATION OF QUIZZES 1st quiz: equi-asia v dfa (AGASANG) 1. What is exhaustion of admin remedies?

- the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction. 2. What are the two power vested in administrative bodies? - quasi-judicial and quasilegislative. 3. Explain quasi-judicial - in quasi-judicial, an admini bodies adjudicates the rights of persons before it in accordance with standards laid down by law. 4. Explain quasi-legislative - it is exercise by admin bodies through the promulgation of rules and regulations within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non delegation of powers. 5. What are the tests of proper delegation of power? - completeness and sufficient standard tests. 6. Is certiorari is proper remedy in the case of equi-asia v. Dfa? - no, dfa in the exercise of its quasi-legislative function, it promulgate rules and regulation. Because of this, certiorari is not proper remedy. Certiorari is applicable only in judicial and quasi-judicial acts. 2nd quiz: puse v. Puse 1. Who have concurrent jurisdiction in cases involving public school teacher? - the Professional regulation commission, deped and civil service. 2. What is concurrent jurisdiction? - concurrent juris is that which is possessed ever the same parties or subj matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals. 3. What is the rule in concurrent juris? - the agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of others. 4. Is technical rules of procedure strictly applies in admin cases? - no, technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied. The purpose is to resolve cases in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner possible. 5. Is formal offer of evidence is necessary? - no, the fact that the complainant did not formally offer her exhibits the way she would in courts of justice does not prevent the prc from admitting said evidence. The technical rules of procedure is not strictly applied in admin cases. 6. Reason why the petitioner in the case of puse v. Puse was not denied of his right of due process? - the petitioner in this case was afforded admin due process. The records show the petitioner filed the following: compliance-answer, rejoinder, porition paper, motion for reconsideration. With the opportunities he had, he cannot claim he was denied the due process. 3. Was the Office of the President correct when it acted upon the appeal? Thus, when the Office of the President acted upon the appeal of the respondent and thereby reversing the final and executory Decision of the HLURB Regional Office, it acted without jurisdiction. It bears stressing that after the Decision of the HLURB Regional Office had become final and executory as early as March 1996, even the Office of the President had no more jurisdiction to revive, review, change or alter the same. Such final resolution or decision of an administrative agency also binds the Office of the President even if such agency is under the administrative supervision and control of the latter. 4. Can the Supreme Court still touch on a case that has long been final? Having said that the Decision of the HLURB Regional Office dated 20 December 1995 had become final and executory, it was, therefore, a reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals to affirm the Decision of the Office of the President reversing the HLURB Regional Office, because such Decision was rendered by the Office of the President without jurisdiction. Hence, when the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Office of the President, it likewise 1. When did the decision of the HLURB become final and executor?

That for failure of respondent to file the proper mode of appeal within the reglementary period before the HLURB, its Decision dated 20 December 1995 already became final and executor. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory and, hence, unappealable. 2. Why is the Notice of Appeal different from Petition for Review? The Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent cannot equate to the Petition for Review required by the HLURB Rules. The Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent merely states that: Respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) thru counsel, unto this Honorable Office most respectfully gives notice that it is appealing the Decision dated 20 December 1995 of HLURB Arbiter, Hon. Cesar A. Manuel to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board on both questions of law and fact. whereas, the Petition for Review under Section 23 of the 1994 HLURB Rules must contain the petitioners assignment of errors on the decision sought to be reviewed, the issues to be resolved, the law on which it is based and the arguments in support thereof. There is a wide difference between Notice of Appeal and a Petition for Review in terms of substance that the relaxation of the rigid rules of procedure cannot be permitted.

Case # 1 Pena vs. GSIS (AGUILA)

acted without jurisdiction. Well-settled is the rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, no court, not even this Court, has the power to revive, review, change or alter the same. Case # 2 Delos Reyes vs. Flores 1. What is the remedy available for the petitioners? The appellate court found that petitioners failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available from the dismissal of their petition for relief. According to the appellate court, petitioners failed to file in the Office of the President a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order. 2. When would certiorari n mandamus not lie? The writ of certiorari does not lie where another adequate remedy is available for the correction of the error. Likewise, mandamus is granted only in cases where no other remedy is available which is sufficient to afford redress because generally, a writ of mandamus will not lie from one branch of the government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other. 3. Is the petitioner justified in not filing a motion for reconsideration when an order contains that no further pleadings would be entertained/ It is maintain that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to the filing of a petition for certiorari, being the plain and adequate remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It is argue that a petition for certiorari will not prosper unless the administrative agency has been given, through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. It is insist the law intends to afford the administrative agency an opportunity to rectify the errors it may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of justice can be had. We are not convinced that this constitutes an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioners may not arrogate to themselves the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. The language of the order notwithstanding, petitioners are bound by procedural rules and may not disregard the same on a wrong assumption that a motion for reconsideration might no longer be entertained. Even so, they should have awaited the denial of their motion for reconsideration before filing the extraordinary remedy of petition for certiorari. 4. What is the specialization of the DAR? As this case involves the application of P.D. No. 27 and LOI No. 474, the DAR Secretary, owing to his agrarian expertise, is in a better position to make a final determination whether petitioners landholdings may be subject of exclusion from operation land transfer or retention. 5. Why is the finding of DAR final? The Court need not weigh anew the evidence submitted by the parties and supplant the findings of fact by the DAR Secretary, especially when such findings are fully supported by

evidence consisting of certifications issued by the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Bataan and the various certificates of title on record. GMA vs. MTRCB (AGUILAR) 1. The only exemptions from the MTRCBs power of review are those expressly mentioned in Section 7, such as (1) television programs imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or departments and agencies, and (2) newsreels. 2. Memorandum Circular 98-17 grants MTRCB the power to screen, review and examine all motion pictures, television programs including publicity materials. 3. Sec. 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987 expressly requires each agency to file with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center three certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Administrative issuances which are not published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be enforced. I. Questions: 1. What was the Senate Committee Report No. 225 recommends? OSG vs. Ayala (BARILLO)

-it recommends that the OSG should institute the necessary action to enjoin the collection of parking fees by the mall operators and also for the DTI to formulate the necessary implementing rules and regulations on parking in shopping malls. 2. What were the mall owners seeks from the court?

-to declare the IRR of the Building Code as ultra vires, unconstitutional and void and also to declare the mall operators right to lease parking spaces necessary to its operations. 3. Why was the ruling in Republic vs. Gonzales not applicable to the case?

-because in the case of Republic vs. Gonzales what was involved was parking in the local streets which causes build-up of heavy traffic, while in the present case, it involved privately owned parking facilities available for the use by the general public. 4. What was the basis of the DPWH in saying that parking spaces should be provided by mall owners for free?

-the Building Code provision which provides that the DPWH has the power to regulate and control the use, occupancy, and maintenance of buildings and structures. 5. Why the court did not consider the act of the Administrative agencies as an exercise of Police Power?

-because the court states that prohibiting the collection of parking fees from the public for the use of the mall parking facilities, the State would be acting beyond the bounds of police power. It was however an exercise of the power of Eminent Domain, which requires just compensation.

II. 1.

NEA vs. Villanueva What does the doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies mean?

4. What does Article 7 of the Civil Code states? Article 7 of the Civil Code provides that an administrative rule or regulation cannot contravene the law on which it is based OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. CRUZABRA 1. What is the quantum of proof required in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings?

-it means that before resorting to judicial action, available administrative remedies should be exhausted first. This would give the administrative agencies an opportunity to correct their mistake or error when necessary. The doctrine also dictates that the administrative remedy should not merely be initiated but to go through it until its completion before resorting to judicial action. 2. What is the result for failure to observe the doctrine?

Answer: Substantial evidence 2. -the result would be that the judicial action lacks cause of action which is one of the grounds for the dismissal of the action under the Rules of Court. 3. What is the defect of the appeal of Villanueva? What is the meaning of the quantum of proof mentioned in the first question?

Answer: Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. 3. Why the meted order against the petitioner became final and unappealable?

-the defect of the appeal of Villanueva is that he resorted to judicial action even before exhausting the available administrative remedy available to him, that is to appeal the decision of the NEA before the Office of the President who has the power of supervision over NEA. 4. What is the ruling of the RTC in the action filed by Villanueva?

Answer: Pursuant to Section 27, R.A. No. 6770, findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of a public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one months salary shall be final and unappealable. 4. Why is it that the CA had no appellate jurisdiction over the case?

-the ruling of the RTC is that it granted the motion of Villanueva for Temporary Restraining Order and favoured its contention that as an ex-officio member of the Sanggunian, he is not deemed resigned as a member of the Board of Directors of ANECO. 5. What law would govern the appeal from the decision of the NEA?

-appeal from the decision of NEA should be governed by the National Electrification Administration Decree which provides that appeal from the decision of NEA should be made before the Office of the President. Fort Bonifacio Development Corp vs. CIR (BARRIDO) 1. What does an implementing rule or regulation cannot do? To be valid, an administrative rule or regulation must conform, not contradict, the provisions of the enabling law. An implementing rule or regulation cannot modify, expand, or subtract from the law it is intended to implement. 2. What is the status of Revenue Regulation 7-95? Null and void insofar as it restricts the definition of "goods" as basis of transitional input tax credit under Section 105. 3. Why is it that Section 4.105-1 of Revenue Regulation 7-95 in conflict with the law? Section 4.105-1 of RR 7-95 restricted the definition of "goods" into improvements, such as buildings, roads, drainage systems, and other similar structures, when in fact the term "goods or properties" by the unambiguous terms of Section 100 includes "real properties held primarily for sale to costumers or held for lease in the ordinary course of business."

Answer: Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 7 (the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), as amended by A.O. No. 17, provides that where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. Given the provisions of law and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioners Order faulting respondent for neglect of duty for which it imposed the penalty of one month suspension without pay is final, executory and unappealable. It follows that the Court of Appeals hadno appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify or reverse the Order. 5. How did the respondents guilt of neglect of duty become more pronounced?

Answer: Respondents guilt of neglect of duty becomes more pronounced as note is taken of her admitted inaction upon learning of the irregularity. Her justification for such inaction that to do so would subject her to a charge of falsification reflects her indifference, to say the least, to her duties and functions. HERRERA VS. BERNARDO (BRIEVA) 1. Does COSLAP (Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems) have jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership between the parties? No. Administrative agencies, like COSLAP, are tribunals of limited jurisdiction that can only wield powers which are specifically granted to it by its enabling statute. The given case does not fall under any of the cases enumerated in the enabling law of COSLAP. The law does not vest jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Why was the COSLAP established? COSLAP was created by virtue of an Executive Order (561) issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos. It is an administrative body established as a means of providing mechanism for the expeditious settlement of land problems among small settlers, landowners and members of the cultural minorities to avoid social unrest. Where do the respondents base their claim? The respondents cause of action pertains to their claim over the subject property which is an action involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein. Where should they file such claim? They should have filed their case at the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court from which the proper jurisdiction is vested with depending on the assessed value of the property. What is the applicable principle in this case? Administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction that can only wield powers which are specifically granted to it by its enabling statute. They cannot go beyond their jurisdiction.

3.

How did the principle of estoppels apply in the case of Banaga? Petitioners are already estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction. They did not raise the issue on appeal. What they alleged is that PACLAP Provincial Committee exceeded its jurisdiction in ruling on the validity of the verbal agreement between the parties, which they contend to be within the jurisdiction of the civil courts. This is not the issue they raised in their petition. Here, the principle of Estoppel applies. Miro vs Dosono Why did the CA dismiss the administrative case of Atty. Dosono? The CA dismissed the admin case of Atty. Dosono because as to them the evidence presented is insufficient to prove the guilt of Atty. Dosono. Also, the failure of the complainant to appear in the administrative proceedings had been taken into consideration by CA in dismissing the case. What is the standard of evidence required in an administrative proceeding? The lowest standard of substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion, applies. What action did the SC take on the petition of the Ombudsman? The SC granted the petition and reinstated the Ombudsmans ruling. What are the circumstances that the SC considers in finding Atty. Dosono guilty of an administrative offense? The complaint filed by the spouses, followed by the entrapment conducted by the police officers, and then his arrest were the circumstances that the SC considers in finding the guilt of Atty. Dosono. Also, the presence of ultraviolet powder in respondents hands anchors his administrative liability.

1.

2.

ERIGUEL VS. COMELEC 3. 1. 2. 3. Where did Dumpit file his election protest? At the Regional Trial Court From RTC, where did he file an appeal? At the COMELEC Special Second Division Why did Comm. Sarmiento elevate the appeal to the Comelec en banc? Because Comm. Ferrer inhited himself, the required quorum is not obtained. The law provides that in deciding the case in a division, the required votes of 2 comm is required. They did not obtain the 2 votes so Comm Sarmineto opted to elevate the case to Comelec en banc. What is the ruling of the SC regarding the decision of the COMELEC en banc? The automatic elevation of the appeal from the division to the Comelec en banc is invalid. Comelec en banc is only authorized to hear and decide motions for reconsideration and not the appeal per se. Comm. Sarmiento should have called another comm so as to get the required quorum in deciding the case. What should the Comelec do before conducting the fresh appreciation of ballots? The Comelec should have first ascertained the integrity of the ballots as these are the most conclusive evidence in deciding an election case prior to conducting the fresh appreciation of such ballots. Banaga vs COSLAP (ESPERANZA) What is the purpose in creating PACLAP? The Presidential Act Committee on Land Problems (PACLAP) was created pursuant to EO No. 251 which objective is to expedite and coordinate the investigation and resolution of land disputes, streamline and shorten administrative procedures, adopt bold and decisive measures to solve land problems, and/or recommend other solutions. Answer: the court cannot allow litigant to assume a different posture when he comes before the court and challenges the position whereby the court, which is supposed to review administrative determinations, would not review, but determine for the first time, a question not raised in the administrative forum.

4.

CIR vs SM Prime Holdings (GANAN) 1. When does the Court resort to legislative history in interpreting laws?

4.

5.

When the intent of the law is not apparent as worded, or when the application of the law would lead to absurdity or injustice, legislative history is all important. In such cases, courts may take judicial notice of the origin and history of the law, the deliberations during the enactment, as well as prior laws on the same subject matter to ascertain the true intent or spirit of the law. 2. What is the sole factual issue in this case?

1.

The sole factual issue in this case is whether the gross receipts derived from admission tickets by cinema/theater operators or proprietors are subject to Value-Added Tax (VAT) 3. How did the court rule on the said issue?

2.

The court ruled that the gross receipts derived by respondents from admission tickets in showing motion pictures, films or movies are not subject to VAT under the tax code. The court resorted to the laws legislative history in ascertaining the true intent of the law. 4. Why did the Court ruled that Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) in this case is invalid?

Considering that there is no provision of law imposing VAT on the gross receipts of cinema/theater operators or proprietors derived from admission tickets, RMC No. 28-2001 which imposes VAT on the gross receipts from admission to cinema houses must be struck down. RMCs must not override, supplant, or modify the law, but must remain consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and implement. 5. What is the administrative law principle in this case? Hahahaah (meron ba?)

Question 4: is machado stopped from questioning jurisdiction because he participated in the COSLAP proceedings? - No. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Estoppel does not confer jurisdiction over a cause of action to a tribunal where none, by law, exists. The Supreme Court held that COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the case. CA decision reversed and set aside. PACLAP was the predecessor of COSLAP. Executive Order 561 abolished PACLAP ans was replaced by COSLAP. It specifically enumerated the instances when COSLAP may exercise its adjudicatory functions. COSLAP may assume jurisdiction over land disputes which are critical or theres emergence of social tension or other similar critical situations: (a) Between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement holders or timber concessionaires; (b) Between occupants/squatters and government reservation grantees; (c) Between occupants/squatters and public land claimants or applicants;

The repeal of the Local Tax Code by the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 is not a legal basis for the imposition of VAT on the gross receipts of cinema/theater operators or proprietors derived from admission tickets. The removal of the prohibition under the Local Tax Code did not grant nor restore to the national government the power to impose amusement tax on cinema/theater operators or proprietors. Neither did it expand the coverage of VAT. Since the imposition of a tax is a burden on the taxpayer, it cannot be presumed nor can it be extended by implication. A law will not be construed as imposing a tax unless it does so clearly, expressly, and unambiguously. As it is, the power to impose amusement tax on cinema/theater operators or proprietors remains with the local government. MCC vs. Ssangyong (GUILLEN) Q1: admin issue -The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the implementation of a statute or law is necessarily limited to what is found in the legislative enactment itself. IRR cannot extend the law or expand its coverage because the power to amend or repeal is vested with the Legislature. Law cannot be broadened by a mere administrative issuance an administrative agency certainly cannot amend an act of Congress. Q2: what are considered electronic data message? -electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telefax or telecopy Q3: can facsimile be considered as an electronic evidence? -no. it is not within the enumeration provided by law.

(d) Petitions for classification, release and/or subdivision of lands of the public domain; and (e) Other similar land problems of grave urgency and magnitude. Therefore, it is evident that under EO 561, COSLAP may assume jurisdiction only those involving public lands or those covered by a specific license from the government. Undisputably, properties involved in this case are private lands owned by private parties. Moreover, the dispute between the parties cannot be classified as critical that would create social tension. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and a judgment issued by a quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is VOID. Estoppel does not confer jurisdiction over a cause of action to a tribunal where none, by law, exists. The Machados can rightfully question its jurisdiction at anytime, even during appeal or after final judgment. Since the decision is void, it cannot attain finality and writ of execution is also void. IRON v. CA (INGUSAN) Does non-incorporated agency has legal personality? yes. non-incorporated agency is an agent or delegate of the republic, while the republic itself is a body corporate and juridical person vested with full panoply of powers and attributes which are compendiously described as "legal personality". can a non-incorporated agency with an expired statutory term be substituted by the government in a suit? yes. when the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties and functions as well as the assets and liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are re assumed by, the RP, in the absene of special provisions of law specifying other disposition thereof.

MACHADO V. GATDULA

Question 1: two legal issues - jurisdiction and estoppels Question 2: factual basis of SCs decision - EO 561 Question 3: administrative issue

is there a need for a new legislation in order for the republic to substitute IRON in an expropriation case? no. while the power of eminent domain is, in principle, vested primarily in the legislative dept., the SC held that no new legislative act is necessary should the republic decide to continue the expropriation proceeding because long time ago, legislative authority enacted continuing or standing delegation of authority to the president to exercise the power of eminent domain on behalf of the gov't of the phil.. LOKIN V. COMELEC requisites for a valid Implementing Rules and Regulations: 1. it's promulgation must be authorized by the legislature 2. it must be within the scope of authority given by the legislature 3. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure 4. it must be reasonable in the given case, what requisite/s is/are lacking? 2nd and 4th are lacking. the COMELEC added in its IRR additional ground that was not contemplated by the law authorizing it. further, it won't be reasonable because there was no publication of such amendment so as to inform the people. does the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the case? yes, because it involves a case where the issue is the implementation of its promulgated IRR over the facts at hand. It is neither an election protest nor a quo warranto, where the HRET has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Election protest? proposes to oust the winning candidate from office. contest between the defeated and winning candidates based on electoral fraud and irregulatities, to determine who between them has actually obtained the majority of the legal votes ast and is entitled to hold the office quo warranto? involves questions of disloyalty to the state, or of ineligibility of the winning candidate. it is an action to unseat the ineligible person from office but not to install the petitioner in his place.

2. How does international law become part of the sphere of domestic law? What are the two kinds? By transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate." Thus, treaties or conventional international law must go through a process prescribed by the Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts. 3. Whether the pertinent intl agreements entered into by the Phil are part of the law of the land and may be implemented by DOH through the RIRR. If yes, W/N the RIRR is in accord with intl agreements. Yes for ICBMS. Under 1987 Constitution, Intl law can become domestic law by transformation (through constitutional mechanism such as local legislation) or incorporation (mere constitutional declaration i.e treaties) The ICBMS and WHA resolutions were not treaties as they have not been concurred by 2/3 of all members of the Senate as required under Sec, 21, Art 8. However, the ICBMS had been transformed into domestic law through a local legislation such as the Milk Code. The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of ICBMS. No for WHA Resolutions. The Court ruled that DOH failed to establish that the provisions pertinent WHA resolutions are customary intl law that may be deemed part of the law of the land. Unlike the ICBMS whereby legislature enacted most of the provisions into the law via the Milk Code, the WHA Resolutions (specifically providing for exclusive breastfeeding from 0-6 months, breastfeeding up to 24 Months and absolutely prohibiting ads for breastmilk substitutes) have not been adopted as domestic law nor are they followed in our country as well. The Filipinos have the option of how to take care of their babies as they see fit. WHA Resolutions may be classified as SOFT LAW non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior. Soft law is not part of intl law. 4. Did the DOH acted in excess of their jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction and in violation of the Constitution by promulgating the RIRR? Yes. Some parts of the RIRR were not in consonance with the Milk Code such as: Sec. 4(f) advertising, promotions of formula are prohibited, Sec 11 prohibitions for advertising breastmilk substitutes intended for infants and young children up to 24 months Sec 46 sanctions for advertising These provisions are declared null and void. The DOH and respondents are prohibited from implementing said provisions. GSIS vs. HLURB 1. What is the extent of the jurisdiction of HLURB? Section 5 of E.O. No. 648 specifically mandates the HLURB Board of Commissioners to adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business and perform such functions necessary for the effective discharge thereof. Such grant of power necessary to carry out its functions has been held to be an adequate source of authority to delegate a particular function, unless, by express provision of the Act or by implication, it has been withheld. Also, the jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate business is broad enough to include jurisdiction over a complaint for

Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque III (IRUGUIN) G.R. No. 173034 1. What is E.O No. 51 The Milk Code which was issued by President Cory Aquino by virtue of the legislative powers granted to her under the Freedom Constitution on Oct.1986.

annulment of foreclosure sale and mortgage and the grant of incidental reliefs such as a CDO. Even Presidential Decree No. 957, The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree, authorizes the HLURB as successor of the National Housing Authority to issue CDOs in relevant cases. 2. Why did the HLURB grant the cease and desist order requested by the spouses even if the property was mortgaged first before it was sold to them? The mortgage was is void because no mortgage on any unit or lot shall be made by the owner or developer without prior written approval of this Board. Thus, said respondents violated Section 18 of P.D. No. 957. 3. What was the ruling of the court regarding GSIS stand that it was exempted under PD 385? The act subject of the CDO was the intended consolidation by the GSIS of ownership of the condominium unit, not the mandatory foreclosure of the mortgage. Under PD 385 No restraining order, temporary or permanent injunction shall be issued by the court against any government financial institution in any action taken by such institution in compliance with the mandatory foreclosure. However, it only covers on- going foreclosures. Also, the second paragraph of Section 2 of PD No. 385 in fact recognizes the eventuality that an injunction may be issued against a government financial institution, hence, it obliges the borrower to liquidate the arrearages due in order to safeguard the interests of the government financial institution-lender. 4. What was the decision of the CA when GSIS alleged that the HLURB acted without jurisdiction, for only three members, instead of the nine-man Board of Commissioners, entertained the appeal, contrary to the mandate of Sections 5 and 6(a) of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 648 (1981), as amended? The Court of Appeals dismissed GSISs petition and accordingly ordered the Arbiter to proceed with dispatch in the disposition of the spouses De los Reyess complaint. It held that the HLURB Second Division did not abuse its discretion in taking jurisdiction over GSISs motion for reconsideration-appeal, for 2004, the HLURB Revised Rules of Procedure provides that appeals shall be decided by the Board of Commissioners sitting en banc or by division in accordance with the internal rules of the Board. The Court of Appeals ratiocinated that the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction were present; and since the act sought to be enjoined pertains to the consolidation process, it is outside the intended ambit of PD No. 385. 5.. What was the ruling of the SC? The CA is correct. The Housing and Land Use Arbiter is ORDERED to proceed with dispatch with private respondent spouses De los Reyess complaint. The request of the spouses is the cdo in the consolidation of ownership and not the foreclosure per se, therefore it is not covered by PD 385. Also, Since the 2004 HLURB Rules of Procedure provides that a motion for reconsideration shall be assigned to the Division from which the decision, order or ruling originated, the questioned cognizance by the HLURB Second Division of GSISs motion for reconsideration is in order. Silverio v. Republic (JOAQUIN) 1. What is the proper forum for the issues raised by silverio?

-office of the civil registry 2. May a person successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery?

-no, there is no law allowing it 3. If the court should not be blamed for the deficiencies of laws, who should silverio blame?

-congress not the judiciary Yap v. COA 1. What was the legal basis of the auditor in issuing notice of disallowances against yap?

Secs. 7 and 8, art. IX-b of the 1987 constitution 2. What was the 2 (two) requirement according to PD 1445 summarized by the court for the disbursement of public funds?

-for public use and allowed by law 3. Is COA limited on the legal basis of other offices in deciding cases elevated to them for review?

-no, they can have their own legal basis 4. Why the contentions of Yap were not upheld by the SC?

-Yap wasnt able to prove his case 5. What was the admin law principle applicable in the case?

-in order for a disbursement of public fund to become valid it shud be for public purpose and allowed by law GR 156225 Letran vs. NLRC (MAGLAQUE) 1. Anong yung 2 conflicting interpretations? Ano yung pinanigan ng SC? 2. Ano ang reasoning ng CA for their decision? 3. Di ko na matandaan I swear..last yir pa kase Answer: 1. Nasa digest ko ung explanations: 1. Bureau of Working Conditions 2. Legal services Department of DOLE And the answer is letter B.

2. Affirmed the decision of NLRC that overtime pay should not be included in 13th month pay for it is an extra remuneration for excess how beyond 8-hour working period.

Note: Nasa digest ang sagot basically. A.M. 076230 1. Bakit dinismiss yung Ocampo case? Ano ung di evidence ang di sufficient? 2. Bakit guilty si Judge ng gross misconduct sa Judicial Audit Case? 3. Ano yung na-violate ni Judge nung nag-guilty bakit siya na gross Ignorance ng law sa Chang Tan Case? 4. Ano quantum of proof ang kelangan pag admin case? 5. Anong effect nung pagsoli niya ng pera na tinanggap from Sylvia Santos? ANSWER: 1. In regard to the denial of the Motion to Dismiss in the Ocampo Case, without necessarily ruling on the correctness of respondent Judge Arcaya-Chuas Order, Justice Salazar-Fernando believed that respondent Judge's disposition thereof fell within the ambit of discretion vested upon her as a judge. Not giving credence to the evidence presented by the movants with respect to the residence of Milan Ocampo was well within her judicial discretion. Assuming the same was erroneous, no administrative liability attached thereon in the absence of sufficient evidence that she ruled in such manner, because of a corrupt or dishonest motive, bad faith, fraud or malice. Justice Salazar-Fernando found that there is substantial evidence of an anomaly in respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's solemnization of marriages in her court and failure to reflect the correct number of marriages in her Monthly Reports. Kinukupit nia ung solemnization fees. Justice Salazar-Fernando stated that in the Chang Tan Case, the OCA primarily asserted that the TPO issued by respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua could not be legally justified under R.A. No. 9262, because the said law applies only if the applicant for TPO is a woman. The Investigating Justice partly agreed with the OCA on that score. R.A. No. 9262 is known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. It is specifically applicable to "women and their children," not to men. It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required to establish malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Justice Salvador also gave weight to complainants testimony that the return of the money by respondent, in addition to familial interests, induced her to withdraw the complaint.

that COMELEC Resolution No. 8212 is an issuance in the exercise of the COMELECs adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function. The same was issued pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166, which states that [a]ll pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari. (Italics supplied) 2. When a pre-proclamation case pending at the COMELEC may continue after the beginning of the term of the office?? However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari. (Italics supplied) 3. What power is exercise by COMELEC in pre-proclamation cases/proceeding and define such power.? The determination by the COMELEC of the merits of a pre-proclamation case definitely involves the exercise of adjudicatory powers. The COMELEC examines and weighs the parties pieces of evidence vis--vis their respective arguments, and considers whether, on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the case appears to have merit. Where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial 4. What is quasi-judicial

2.

3.

Where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer 5. When Petition for Certiorar may prosper? For an action for certiorari to prosper, there must be a showing that the COMELEC acted with "grave abuse of discretion," which means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof.32 The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.33 In the present case, petitioners have not sufficiently shown that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in excluding their cases from the list of those that shall continue. Apart from petitioners bare allegations, the record is bereft of any evidence to prove that petitioners pre-proclamation cases appear meritorious. Let it be stressed that under Section 16 of Article 7166, the

4.

5.

Patalnghug v COMELEC (MENDIOLA) 1.State Sec.16 of RA7166

proceedings may continue when "on the basis of the evidence thus far presented," the COMELEC determines that the pre-proclamation petition appears meritorious. 2. Banda v `Ermta 1.what is a class suit? Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court defines a class suit, as follows:. When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest. 2. Basis in determining whether an action is a class suit? - Basis/Essential Element of Class suit s the ADEQUACY REPRESENTATION. An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attending facts, and the complaint, or other pleading initiating the class action should allege the existence of the necessary facts, to wit, the existence of a subject matter of common interest, and the existence of a class and the number of persons in the alleged class, in order that the court might be enabled to determine whether the members of the class are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, to contrast the number appearing on the record with the number in the class and to determine whether claimants on record adequately represent the class and the subject matter of general or common interest. (Emphases ours.) MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc.,7 we observed that an element of a class suit or representative suit is the adequacy of representation. In determining the question of fair and adequate representation of members of a class, the court must consider (a) whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of the other members of the class; (b) the proportion of those made a party, as it so bears, to the total membership of the class; and (c) any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for the rest of the class. 3. What is the focal issue in this case? -The power of the President to reorganize the offices and agencies in the executive department And validity of EO 378 4.The President can exercise his power to reorganize the executive department subject to the ff conditions: -. Section 31(1) of Executive Order No. 292 specifically refers to the Presidents power to restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, by abolishing, consolidating or merging units hereof or transferring functions from one unit to another, while Section 31(2) and (3) concern executive offices outside the Office of the President Proper allowing the President to transfer any function under the Office of the President to any other

Department or Agency and vice-versa, and the transfer of any agency under the Office of the President to any other department or agency and vice-versa. -To be very clear, this delegated legislative power to reorganize pertains only to the Office of the President and the departments, offices and agencies of the executive branch and does not include the Judiciary, the Legislature or the constitutionally-created or mandated bodies. Moreover, it must be stressed that the exercise by the President of the power to reorganize the executive department must be in accordance with the Constitution, relevant laws and prevailing jurisprudence. -Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good faith 5. Is there an abolition of an office in this case?no

functions to be transferred to another agency. Under the assailed Executive Order No. 378, the NPO remains the main printing arm of the government for all kinds of government forms and publications but in the interest of greater economy and encouraging efficiency and profitability, it must now compete with the private sector for certain government printing jobs, with the exception of election paraphernalia which remains the exclusive responsibility of the NPO, together with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, as the Commission on Elections may determine. At most, there was a mere alteration of the main function of the NPO by limiting the exclusivity of its printing responsibility to election forms.15 6. Is EO 378 valid? Yes. The issuance of Executive Order No. 378 by President Arroyo is an exercise of a delegated legislative power granted by the aforementioned Section 31, Chapter 10, Title III, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, which provides for the continuing authority of the President to reorganize the Office of the President, "in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency.". there is good faith. 1. Medina v. COA (PEDROSA) a. WON the Administrative Code has primacy over Admin Orders issued by the Ombudsman in cases filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. A: On various occasionsm the Court has ruled on the primacy of special laws and of their implementing regulations over Administrative Code of 1987 in settling controversies specially subject of these special laws. Thus the Orders issued by the Ombudsman governs in this case which involves admin complaint filed before it. b. what is the rule on statutory construction where there are 2 statutes applicable to a particular case? A: that which is specially intended for the said case must prevail. c. The denial of petitioner's request for a formal investigation is not tantamount to a denial of right to due process as the petitioner was required to file its counter-affidavit and position paper. d. The essence of due process in admin proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given

the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. 2. Guy v. Ignacio a. What are the 2 cases filed before the Bureau of Immigration? A: Complaint for blacklisting and deportation b. What is the basis of the ruling of the SC on the claims of petitioner. A: Judicial intervention should be granted in cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct. The petitioners showed proof of their Philippine citizenship such as the identification numbers issued by the BI, and they have duly exercised and enjoyed all the rights and privileges accorded to Filipino citizens. c.What utmost caution must be exercised in availing of the judicial intervention. A: The court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services in determining technical and intricate matters of fact. d. What is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. A: The courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. Rizal Security v. Maraan (RECAMARA) 1. Due Process in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings The nature of proceddings before DOELE Regional Office shall be summary and nonlitigious in nature, and that the technicalities of law and procedure and the rules governing admissibility and sufficiency of evidence obtaining in the courts of law do not strictly aplly thereto, subject only to the requirements of due process. Grave abuse of discretion The respondent acts without jurisdiction if he does not have the legal power to determine the case. There is excess of jurisdiction where the respondent, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps his authority as determined by law. And there is grave of buse of discretion where respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of his judgment. Exhaustion of admin remedies This rests on the presumption that when administrative body or grievance machinery is afforded a chance to pass upon the matter, it will decide the same correctly. Thus, for reasons of comity and convenience, our courts of justice will shy away from a dispute until the system of admin redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the admin agency to correct its error and to dispose of the case.

MERALCO V. CHUA 1. RA 7832 provides for the presence of an authorized govt agent, either an officer of the law or an auth rep of the ERB (Energy Reg. Board) during the Meralco inspection to be considered prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity. What dis the IRR include that makes it invalid? A: The inclusion of the phrase BY THE CONSUMER CONCERNED in the IRR is invalid because it is in excess of the law being implemented . Rule making cannot extend, amend or expand. Under Sec 6 of RA 7832, when is Meralco authroized to immediately disconnect the electric service of its consumers? A: When (a) the cons, or someone acting on his behalf, is caught in flagrante delicto in any of the acts enumerated in Sec. 4 or (b) when any of the circumstances enumerated , constituting prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity, is discovered for the 2 nd time.

2.

Atlas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (REYES) 1. Who has the power to promulgate rules and regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of the NIRC?

- The Secretary of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner, shall promulgate rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of this Code. Sec.245 of the NIRC 2. Is RR-38 applicable to judicial proceedings? RR-38 has been duly promulgated pursuant to the rule-making power of the Secretary of Finance upon the recommendation of the CIR. Administrative issuances have the force of law and are entitled to great weight. The summary of the invoices and a certification from an independent public accountant, which are the only ones required by CTA Circular No. 1-95 as amended by CTA Circular No. 10-97, are merely corroborative of the actual input VAT it paid and of the actual export sales. It does not replace the pertinent invoices receipts, and export sales documents as competent evidence to prove the fact of refundable input VAT.

2.

ANTOLIN v. DOMONDON 1. What is the remedy of the petitioner upon the negative decision of the Board of Accountancy? - The remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal with the PRC. Under Sec. 5(c) of P.D.223, the PRC has the power to review, coordinate, integrate, and approve the policies, resolutions, rules and regulations, orders or decisions promulgated by the various Boards with respect to their profession. 2. Can the review of examination results by PRC be compelled by mandamus?

3.

- No, The function of reviewing and reassessing the petitioners answers to the examination questions is a discretionary function, not a ministerial and mandatory one; hence, not within the scope of writ of mandamus. 3. What is the doctrine enunciated in the case justifying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? - One of the reasons for exhaustion of administrative remedies is the well-entrenched doctrine of separation of powers, which prohibits the interference by the Judiciary with matters falling primarily within the competence of other departments. Courts, for reasons of law, comity, and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities have been given an opportunity to act and commit their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum. 4. Does subsequent passing of the examinee rendered the issue moot and academic? - No. Petitioners belated passing of the CPA Board Exams does not automatically mean that her interest in the examination papers has become mere superfluity. The Constitution provides for the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. The national board examinations, such as the CPA Board Exam, are a matter of public concern. The populace, and the examinees in particular, would be interested in the fair and competent administration of these exams in order to ensure that only those qualified are admitted into the accounting profession. 5. Does the PRCs power to review refer only to decisions concerning administrative investigations? - No. The PRCs quasi-legislative and enforcement powers, encompassing its authority to review and approve policies, resolutions, rules and regulations, orders, or decisions, cover more than administrative investigations conducted pursuant to its quasi-judicial powers. The PRC itself issued the resolution questioned by the petitioner; hence, it was in the best position to resolve questions addressed to its area of expertise.