ADMIN LAW ( CHAPTER 6 : JUDICIAL REVIEW )

1. Methods of Review
Notes:
- the findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final
except when specifically provided otherwise by law.
2. Two (2) Doctrines:
a. Primary Jurisdiction or Prior Resort
- courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the
government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special
and technical training and knowledge of such agency.
- ABEJO vs DELA CRUZ:
Between the power lodged in an administrative body and a court, the
unmistakeable trend has been to refer it to the former.
- Where two administrative bodies share concurrent jurisdiction with respect to a
particular case, the settled rule is that the body that first acquires cognizance of the
complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
- HONASAN II vs. PANEL OF INVESTIGATING OFFICERS OF THE DOJ
- observance of this doctrine is required to ensure consistency in administrative findings
and also because of the conceded expertise of the administrative body as compared to
the judicial tribunal , in resolving admin questions in general.
b. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
- An administrative decision must first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to
the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review.
- Recourse through court action cannot prosper until after such admin remedies ahve
first been exhausted.
b1. Reasons:
1. administrative superiors can correct the errors committed by their
subordinates.
- admin agencies, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the
same correctly.
2. Courts should as much as possible refrain from disturbing the findings
of administrative bodies in respect to the doctrine of separation of powers
3. it is best that courts should not be saddled with the review of
administrative cases.
4. judicial review of administrative cases is usually effected through the
special civil actions of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, which are available
only if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
- PAAT vs COURT OF APPEALS
Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he should havve
availed of all the means of admin processes afforded him. Premature court intervention
is fatal to one's cause of action.
- this requirement is NOT absolute. It admits of 11 exceptions:
b2. Exceptions
1. When the question raised is purely legal.
- VALMONTE vs BELMONTE
the issue raised by the petitioner requires r=the interpretation of the scope of his
constitutional right to information, one which can be passed upon by the regular courts
more competently than the GSIS or its Board of Trustees.
2. When the admin body is in estoppel.
3. When the act complained of is patently illegal.
- MANGUBAT vs OSMEA re termination of petitioners' services by the new mayor on
the ground that the latter has no confidence in them. The Supreme Court sustained the
petitioners' direct resort to judicial action.
4.When there is urgent need for judicial intervention.
5. When the claim involved is small.
6. When irreparable damage will be suffered.
- The rule is inapplicable if it should appear that an irreparable damage will be suffered
by a party if he should await, before taking court action, the final action of the
administrative official concerned.
7. When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
8. When strong public interest is involved.
9. When the subject of the controversy is private land.
10. In quo warranto proceedings. (rule 66 of the ROC)
Other exceptions (laid down in Paat case)
1. When there is a violation of due process
2. When to require exhaustion of admin remedies is unreasonable (small claim?)
3. When it would amount to nullification of the claim.



gep
3. Appeal to the President
Q: Is appeal to the president of a decision by a Cabinet member necessary before court
action?
- Jurisprudence on this matter is rather indecisive.
In Demaisip vs CA : NO. By virtue of political agency, the acts of the secretary are the
acts of the President. (also in Bartulata vs Peralta)
In Calo vs Fuertes: YES. It is the final step of the administrative process and therefore
a condition precedent to appeal to the courts. (revived in Tan vs Director of Forestry)