ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEWER (DEAN CARLOTA)
I. Historical and Constitutional Considerations
a. Factors Responsible for the Emergence of Administrative
Agencies
 According to Stone:
(1) Lack of time
(2) Lack of expertise
(3) Lack of organizational aptitude for continuing
regulation/supervision of the three organs to attend to
growing concerns of modern, complex societies
 According to Pangasinan v. Public Service Commission (J.
Laurel):
(1) Growing complexity of modern life
(2) Multiplication of subjects of government regulation
(3) Increased difficulty in administering laws
b. The Doctrine of Separation of Powers and the Constitutional
Position of Administrative Agencies
 Doctrine of Separation of Powers – refers to the constitutional
demarcation of the fundamental powers of the government.
Art. VI, Sec. 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a
House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
Art. VII, Sec. 1. The executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines.
Art. VIII, Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established
by law.
o Angara v Electoral Commission (J. Laurel): “[The principle of
separation of powers] means that the Constitution has
blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines,
allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and
the judicial departments of the government. To the
legislative branch of government, through Congress,
belongs the power to make laws; to the executive branch of
government, through the President, belongs the power to
enforce laws; and to the judicial branch of government,
through the Court, belongs the power to interpret laws.”
o Purpose: “The principle of separation of powers and its
concepts of autonomy and independence stem from the
notion that the powers of government must be divided to
avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch;
the division, it is hoped, would avoid any single branch
from lording its power over the other branches or the
citizenry. To achieve this purpose, the divided power must
be wielded by co-equal branches of government that are
equally capable of independent action in exercising their
respective mandates. Lack of independence would result in
the inability of one branch of government to check the
arbitrary or self-interest assertions of another or others.”
o The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our
system of government. It obtains not through express
provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each
department of the government has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is
supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow
from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate
and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be
absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The
Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks
and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the
various departments of the government.
 Rise of Administrative Agencies
o Stone: The trichotomy can no longer take care of the
problems because society has become too complex thereby
preventing the 3 branches from responding to the problems
effectively  Hence, creation of ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES
o Administrative agencies became the catch basin for the
residual powers of the 3 branches; they perform vital tasks
to make the doctrine viable.
c. Definition of Terms
1

 Administrative law: the law concerning the powers and
procedures of administrative agencies, including, specially,
judicial review of administrative action (Kenneth Davis)
 Administrative agency: any governmental authority, other
than a court or a legislative body, which affects private rights
through rule making or adjudication.
II. Control of Administrative Action
a. Administrative Agencies and the Executive Power of the
President
Art. VII, 17: The President shall have control over all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that
the laws be faithfully executed.
 Executive Power – the power to enforce and administer laws
o Control – the power to alter, modify, or overturn judgments
of subordinates; inherent in the Executive
- It includes the power to lay down the rules in the
performance or accomplishment of an act, and in case
of non-compliance, the power to order the act undone
or redone or to decide to do it themselves (Drilon v Lim)
- Limited only to executive departments, bureaus and
offices
 Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency – department
secretaries are alter egos or assistants of the President
and their acts are presumed to be those of the latter
unless disapproved or reprobated by him
o Supervision – overseeing or the power or authority of an
officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties;
ensure that the laws are faithfully executed
 Does not include the power to law down the rules, nor
the discretion to modify or replace them
 Q: Does the President exercise control over all administrative
agencies?
A: It depends on whether the enabling statute has given the
President the power to review its judgments.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
Under Art. VII, Sec. 17, the President has control over executive
departments, bureaus, and offices, which are necessarily
administrative agencies under the executive branch.
The exception to this power of control administrative agencies
is when the agency is created by law. The enabling statute must
be first reviewed whether the President is given such power. If
the law is silent, then the power of control cannot be presumed
and the President would only have the power of supervision
pursuant to the faithful execution clause.
Moreover, constitutional agencies, are not subject to the
President’s control because they are independent constitutional
creations.
b. Congressional Oversight Power
 Congressional oversight power – power which embraces all
activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding of
and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted;
it is intrinsic in the grant of legislative power and integral to the
checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government
(Macalintal v. COMELEC, J. Puno’s dissent)
o Purpose
 To monitor bureaucratic compliance with program
objectives
 To determine whether agencies are properly administered
 To eliminate executive waste and dishonesty
 To prevent usurpation of legislative authority
 To assess executive conformity with the congressional
perception of public interest
o Categories
(1) Scrutiny – determine economy and efficiency of
administrative operations through requests for information
and reports and giving recommendations and passing
resolutions for the agency’s consideration; implies lesser
intensity and continuity of attention to administrative
operations; based primarily on power of appropriation by
Congress
e.g. budget hearings, question hour, power of confirmation
(2) Investigation – more intense digging of facts; inquiries in
aid of legislation: scope of inquiry is as penetrating and far-
2

reaching as the powers to enact and appropriate under the
Constitution
o 3 limitations in exercise of this power
(i) It must be in aid of its legislative functions
(ii) It must be conducted in accordance with duly
published rules of procedure
(iii) Persons appearing therein are afforded their
constitutional rigths
(3) Supervision – continuing and informed awareness on the
part of a congressional committee regarding executive
operations in a given administrative area (monitors
exercise of delegated law-making authority, retaining part
of that authority)
e.g. legislative veto (requiring President or agency to
present proposed regulations which have the force of law to
Congress, which retains right to approve or disapprove)
c. Legislative and Judicial Control of Administrative Decision
Making
 Legislative Control
o Legislative Powers over Admin. Agencies
(1) Creation – Congress can create, divide, merge, modify or
even abolish agencies (BUT abolition to be used sparingly
because admin. agencies are needed)
(2) Appropriation – Congress has budgetary power and power
to withhold funds (BUT withholding funds might be to
detriment of the public)
(3) Investigation – Congress has power to investigate matters
in aid of legislation (BUT it is limited and not encompassing;
sporadic)
o Non-delegation doctrine (see discussion infra)
o Prescription of minimum procedural requirements – Congress
to provide minimum procedural guidelines and general
principles to be observed by all agencies in the performance of
their rule making and adjudicative functions
 Judicial Review of Administrative Decision Making
o Purpose is to keep the administrative agencies within its
jurisdiction (intra vires) and to protect the substantial rights of
the parties to due process of law
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
o Judicial review is only allowed on questions of law and
jurisdiction, but not on questions of fact and policy. Courts defer
to the expertise and experience of agencies in their areas of
specialization.
 Substantial Evidence Rule – Findings of fact, if supported
by substantial evidence on the record considered as a
whole, is binding upon the reviewing courts, unless
otherwise provided by law.
 Substantial Evidence – such level of evidence which a
reasonable mind would accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion, even if equally reasonable minds opine
otherwise.
d. The Office of the Ombudsman
 Directly created by the 1987 Constitution as an independent office
 Powers (which does not require pending action – BIR v
Ombudsman)
o Investigatory
 any act or omission which appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper or inefficient; encompasses all misfeasance,
malfeasance, nonfeasance committed during their tenure,
whether or not connected with official functions
o Prosecutorial
 Prosecute in its own initiative or from a complaint
o Public Assistance Functions
o Authority to inquire and obtain information
 Characteristics
o Political independence
 Fuentes v Office of Ombudsman: The Ombudsman may not
initiate a criminal or administrative complaint against a
judge. The Ombudsman must indorse the case to the SC for
appropriate action
o Accessibility and Expedition
o Investigatory Power
 Lastimosa v Vasquez: Power to investigate and prosecute
include the investigation and prosecution of any crime
committed by a public official regardless of whether the
acts or omissions complained of are related to, or
connected with, or arise from, the performance of his
3

official duty. It is enough that the act or omission was
committed by a public official.
 Office of the Ombudsman v Enoc: The power to investigate
and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is
plenary and unqualified. The Ombudsman as powers to
prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the regular
courts
 Ledesma v CA; Estarija v Ranada: The powers of the
Ombudsman are not merely advisory or recommendatory
but are binding and mandatory. The Ombudsman has the
authority to determine the administrative liability of
public official or employee, and direct and compel the head
of the office or agency to implement the penalty imposed,
even dismissal from government service.
o Absence of Revisory Jurisdiction (cannot act as reviewing court
of admin. agencies)
 MWSS v Vasquez: The Ombudsman may not veto or revise
an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or officer
upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested
especially when the matter involves basically technical
matters coming under the special technical knowledge and
training of the agency or officer.
III. Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies
a. Legislative Function
i. Non-delegation doctrine
o Potestes delegate non delegare potest, “what has been
delegated cannot further be delegated)
o The Congress cannot further delegate the power delegated
to it by the people. A delegated power must be discharged
directly by the delegate and not through the delegate’s
agent
o In the context of administrative agencies:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
 GENERAL RULE: Lawmaking powers (which was
delegated by the people to Congress) cannot be
delegated
 EXCEPTION: Delegation to administrative agencies:
Principle of subordinate legislation - administrative
bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in
a statute by "filling in" the details which the Congress
may not have the opportunity or competence to
provide
 While the making of laws is a non-delegable power
that pertains exclusively to Congress, nevertheless,
the latter may constitutionally delegate the
authority to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement a given legislation and effectuate its
policies, for the reason that the legislature finds it
impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate
situations that may be met in carrying the law into
effect (People v Rosenthal; Pangasinan
Transportation v Public Service Commission)
 There is a distinction between the delegation of
power to make law, which necessarily involves a
discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring
authority or discretion as to its exection, to be
exercised under and in pursuance of the law
(Compania General v Board of PUC; US v Tang Ho;
Panama Refining Co. v Ryan)
 Requisites of a valid delegation (Pelaez v Auditor
General)
(1) The law must be complete in itself; it must set
forth the policy to be executed (completeness
test)
(2) The law must fix a standard, the limits of which
are sufficiently determinate or determinable,
to which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions.
 The standard may be:
 Express;
 Implied; [Edu v Ericta]] or
4

 Embodied in other statutes on the
same matter and not necessarily in the
same law being challenged.
[Chiongbian v Orbos]
 A standard is sufficient if it—
 Defines legislative policy, marks its
limits, maps out its boundaries and
specifies the public agency to apply it;
and
 Indicates the circumstances under
which the legislative command is to be
effected. [Santiago v COMELEC;
ABAKADA Guro List v Ermita]
 Other powers that can be delegated under the
Constitution (People v Vera)
 Delegation of emergency powers to the President
 Delegation of tariff powers to the President (i.e. fix
tariffs, import and export quotas, tonnage, and
wharfage fees)
 Delegation to the people at large (i.e. initiative and
referendum)
 Delegation to local authorities
 What cannot be delegated
 Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v Auditor
General)
 NOTE: Merging of administrative regions is an
administrative matter
 Defining a crime (US v Ang Tang Ho; People v
Maceren)
ii. Permissible delegation
1) Ascertainment of fact
o Lovina v Moreno: A statute may give to non-judicial
officers the power to declare the existence of facts which
call into operation its provisions and may grant them
and their subordinate officers the power to ascertain
and determine appropriate facts as a basis of procedure
in the enforcement of laws.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
2) Filling in of details
o Alegre v Collector of Customs: A statute which leaves to
the Executive the power to fill in the technical details
in view of the latter’s expertise is a recognized
delegation of legislative power.
3) Administrative rulemaking
Book VII, Administrative Procedure, Administrative
Code of 1987
Sec. 1. Scope.—This Book shall be applicable to all
agencies as defined in the next succeeding section, except
the Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional
Commissions, military establishments in all matters
relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel, the
Board of Pardons and Parole, and state universities and
colleges.
a. Limits of rulemaking power
 Must be authorized by law. [Olsen v Aldanese]
 Must not amend, restrict, diminish, supplant or
modify the law or must not be inconsistent with the
law. [GMCR v Bell Telecom; Syman v Jacinto]
 Effect if otherwise: Action of the administrative
agency to be set aside if there is an error of law,
grave abuse or lack of jurisdiction clearly
conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of
the law. [Land Bank v CA]
 Must not define a criminal act. [People v Maceren]
 Must be germane to the purpose of the law which it
was meant to implement; power to promulgate
rules may be legitimately exercised only for
carrying the provisions of the law into effect.
[Toledo v CSC]
 If there is discrepancy between the basic law
and an administrative rule, the basic law
prevails. [Maxima Realty v Parkway Real
Estate; China Banking v Member of Board of
Trustees of HMDF]
5

 May not unilaterally impose a new legislative
policy, requiring the adjustment of various other
contending policies. [Ople v Torres]
 May not dismantle a regulatory system that was set
up by law. (Ass’n of Phil. Coconut Desiccators v
PHILCOA)
 May not delegate, to a mere constituent unit (e.g.
Bureau of Corrections), the rulemaking authority
legislatively vested in the head of an executive
department (e.g. DoJ). [Echegaray v Secretary of
Justice]
b. Publication and effectivity
Book VII, Administrative Procedure, Administrative
Code of 1987
Sec. 3. Filing.—
(1) Every agency shall file with the University of the
Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every
rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity
of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months
from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of any
sanction against any party or persons.
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent
functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this
section under pain of disciplinary action.
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the
issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection.
Sec. 4. Effectivity.—In addition to other rule-making
requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this
Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from
the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is
fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent
danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of
which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the
rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make
emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by
them.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
Sec. 5. Publication and Recording.—The University of the
Philippines Law Center shall:
(1) Publish a quarterly bulletin setting forth the text of rules
filed with it during the preceding quarter; and
(2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published
and remaining in effect, together with a complete index
and appropriate tables.
xxxxx
Sec. 8. Judicial Notice.—The court shall take judicial notice
of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in
the bulletin or the codified rules.
 TWO REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFECTIVITY
(1) Publication
o Laws shall take effect after 15 days
following the completion of their
publication either in the Official Gazette or
in a newspaper of general circulation in
the Philippines, unless it is otherwise
provided (Civil Code, Art. 2)
 GENERAL RULE: Publication is
indispensable in every case;
publication requirements extend to:
a) PDs and EOs promulgated by the
President in the exercise of
delegated legislative powers
b) Administrative Rules and
Regulations if their purpose is to
implement existing laws pursuant
to a valid delegation
c) Charters of cities
d) Circulars issued by the Monetary
Board if they are meant not to
merely interpret but to fill the
details of the Central Bank Act
6

EXCEPTION: Publication requirement
not needed in:
a) Interpretive rules
b) Internal regulations
c) LOIs issued by administrative
superiors to their subordinates
o “unless otherwise provided by law” –
refers to the date of effectivity and not to
the requirement of publication itself;
legislature, in its discretion, may provide
that the usual 15-day period be shortened
or extended (Tanada v Tuvera)
(2) Filing with the ONAR
o “Every agency shall file with the University
of the Philippines Law Center three (3)
certified copies of every rule adopted by it.
x x x In addition to other rule-making
requirements provided by law not
inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the
date of filing…”
 GENERAL RULE: Every agency shall
file with the ONAR every rule adopted
by it
EXCEPTION: Interpretative
regulations and those merely internal
in nature, that is, regulating only the
personnel of the Administrative
agency and the public, need not be
filed with the UP Law Center. Only
those of general and permanent
character are to be filed (Board of
Trustees of GISIS v Velasco)
 NOTE: The fact that the rules were
filed with the UP Law Center is of no
moment. There is nothing in the
Administrative Code which implies
that the filing of the rules with UP Law
Center is the operative act that gives
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
the rules force and effect (RP v Express
Telecom)
 NOTE: Non-compliance with the 2 mandatory
requirements of (1) Publication and (2) Filing
with the ONAR would not give effectivity to the
administrative issuance (Republic v Pilipinas
Shell Petroleum Corp.)
c. Penal regulations
Book VII, Sec. 6. Omission of Some Rules.—
xxxx
(2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an
act which, pursuant to law is punishable as a crime or
subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in
full text.
 GENERAL RULE: Rules can neither define crimes
nor provide penal sanctions (People v Maceren)
 EXCEPTION:
(1) If the agency is given the rule-making authority
(2) Law itself provides that the act is criminal
o If a rule is penal in character, the rule must
be published before it takes effect. The
people must be officially and specifically
informed of the contents and penalties
(People v Que Po Lay)
d. Interpretative rules
 Interpretative Rules – the agency’s construction,
interpretation, or opinion of a rule it is
implementing. It presupposes that the rule is not
clear and needs interpretation (Dean Carlota)
 Administrative interpretations are
appropriate aids toward eliminating
construction and uncertainty in doubtful
cases. When laws are susceptible of two or
more interpretations, the administrative
agency should make known its official
position.
 General Requirements of Interpretive Rules
7

(1) Must have been issued on authority of law
(2) Must be within the scope and purview of law
(3) Must be reasonable
 Administrative interpretation at best merely
advisory; it is the courts that finally determine
what the law means. [Victorias v Social Security
Commission]
 Action of the administrative agency will be set
aside if there was error of law, or abuse of
power, or lack of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of
discretion clearly conflicting with the letter
and spirit of the legislative enactment. [Peralta
v CSC]
 Interpretative rules may be found erroneous
by the successor of the promulgating
administrative official. A vested right cannot
spring from a wrong construction of law
[Hilado v Collector]. Such wrong interpretation
cannot place the Government in estoppel to
correct or overrule the same. [Phil. Bank of
Communications v CIR]
Legislative Rules Interpretative Rules
promulgated pursuant to its passed pursuant to its quasi-
quasi-legislative / rule-making judicial capacity.
functions.
create a new law, a new policy, merely clarify the meaning of
with the force and effect of law. a pre-existing law by
inferring its implications.
need publication. need not be published.
So long as the court finds that Merely advisory and not
the legislative rules are within binding upon the courts; The
the power of the court may review their
administrative agency to pass, correctness of the
as seen in the primary law, interpretation of the law
then the rules bind the court. given by the administrative
The court cannot question the body, and substitute its own
wisdom or correctness of the view of what is correct to the
policy contained in the rules. administrative body. If it is
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
not within the scope of the
administrative agency, court
can only invalidate the same
but not substitute its decision
or interpretation or give its
own set of rules.
Due process involves whether Due process means that the
the parties were afforded the body observed the proper
opportunity to be notified and procedure in passing rules.
heard before the issuance of
the ruling.
4) Fixing of rates, wages, prices
Book VII, Sec. 9. Public Participation.—
(1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as
practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules
and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their
views prior to the adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid
unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks
before the first hearing thereon.
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be
observed.
o Two requirements for Rate-Fixing
(1) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation for at
least 2 weeks
(2) Public hearing
o An administrative agency cannot delegate its power to set
rates unless it is specifically provided in a law. When the
administrative agency is given the power to set rates, a
company may only propose, and this proposal is subject to
the approval of said agency (Panay Autobus v Philippine
Railway Co.).
 Rate-fixing is a delicate government function that
requires sound discretion with the settled goal of
arriving at a just and reasonable rate acceptable to both
the public utility and the public (KMU Labor Center v
Garcia
8
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT

o Philcomsat v Alcuaz and Vigan Electric Co. v PSC: While rate- o Notice and hearing in licensing is only required if it is a
fixing is generally a quasi-legislative function, it can also be contested case. Otherwise, it can be dispensed with (e.g. driver’s
a quasi-judicial function: license). (Book VII, Sec. 11)
o No expiry date does not mean the license is perpetual. A license
Basis Quasi-legislative Quasi-judicial permit is a special privilege, a permission or authority to do
As to The procedure is that The procedure must what is within its terms. It is not vested, permanent or absolute,
procedural normally observed in observe the but is always revocable. [Gonzalo Sy Trading v Central Bank]
standards the making of rules. requirements of due
process in the 7 b. Judicial Function
cardinal rules.
As to time Rule-making is Adjudication is i. Power to issue subpoena, cite in contempt
prospective in retrospective in Sec. 13, 1987 Admin Code. Subpoena. – In any contested
character, for it only character, for it case, the agency shall have the power to require the
governs future acts. investigates acts attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers,
already done and documents and other pertinent data, upon request of any
then applies the law party before or during the hearing upon showing or general
on the facts. relevance. Unless otherwise provided by law, the agency
As to Legislative rules are of Adjudicative rulings may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the Regional
application general application apply only to parties Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the contested case
being heard falls. The Court may punish contumacy or refusal
as contempt.
5) Licensing function
o Subpoena Power
Book VII, Sec. 17. Licensing Procedure.—
 Power to:
(1) When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is
 Require attendance of witnesses (subpoena ad
required to be preceded by notice and hearing, the
testificandum)
provisions concerning contested cases shall apply insofar as
practicable.  Require production of books, papers, documents,
(2) Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and and other pertinent data (subpoena duces tecum)
regulations or when public security, health, or safety require  When issued:
otherwise, no license may be withdrawn, suspended,  Upon request of any party before or during the
revoked or annulled without notice and hearing. hearing upon showing of general relevance
 All agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the
Book VII, Sec. 18. Non-expiration of License. – Where the power to issue subpoena, even if the administrative
licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the agency’s charter is silent as to such power. If it cannot
renewal of a license with reference to any activity of a continuing subpoena, it cannot function as a quasi-judicial agency.
nature, the existing license shall not expire until the application  TEST FOR THE VALIDITY ENFORCEMENT OF
shall have been finally determined by the agency. SUBPOENA (Evangelista v Jarencio)
(1) It is within the authority of the agency (must be
granted by law)

9

(2) The demand is not too indefinite (not a fishing
expedition)
(3) The information is reasonably relevant
o Contempt Power
 GENERAL RULE: Agencies cannot cite a person in
contempt and must invoke the aid of the RTC within
whose jurisdiction the contested case falls (because
power to cite contempt is inherently judicial)
 EXCEPTION: Unless otherwise provided by law
 Requirements:
(1) An enabling statute expressly gives the agency
the power to cite for contempt
(2) The agency shall exercise such power in
relation to its quasi-judicial, not ministerial
function (Guevarra v COMELEC)
 Two instances where power of contempt is illegal:
(1) There was no grant of power
(2) There was such a grant of power but it was
improperly exercised
NOTE: The agency’s power to hold any person in
contempt for refusal to comply cannot extend to an
RTC Judge and to a party to a controversy who took
necessary steps to avail himself of a judicial remedy
(Tolentino v Inciong)
ii. Warrants of arrest, administrative searches
o Warrants of arrest
 GENERAL RULE: It is only judges, after determination
of probable cause, who can issue (search warrants or)
warrants of arrest (Salazar v Achacoso; Constitution,
Art. III, Sec. 2)
 NOTE: The Constitution does not distinguish
between warrants in a criminal case and
administrative warrants in administrative
proceedings (Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board)
 EXCEPTION: The President or Immigration authorities
can issue arrest warrants if there is a final order of
deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
 Two ways of deporting (Qua Chee Gan v
Deportation Board)
(1) Commission of Immigration by virtue of the
Immigration Law
(2) President pursuant to the Revised
Administrative Code (no grounds for
deportation needed, has sole discretion under
international law)
 NOTE: The warrants issued by the President or the
Immigration authorities is valid because its
purpose is not to determine the existence of
probable cause, but to execute a final order of
deportation (Board of Commissioners v De la
Rosa)
o Administrative searches
 Warrantless administrative searches are significant
intrusions upon interests protected by the 4th
Amendment (right to privacy), and will be subjected to
scrutiny by the Court, particularly as to reasonableness
and whether there is emergency or not. (Camara v
Municipal Court)
 This doctrine likewise applies to commercial
establishments. Businessman, like occupant of a
residence, has a constitutional right to go about
his business free from unreasonable official
entries upon his private commercial property (See
v Seattle)
 Limitations on administrative subpoenas of
corporate books and documents:
(1) Limited in scope.
(2) Relevant in purpose.
(3) Specific directives so that compliance will not
be unreasonably burdensome.
(4) Subpoena must designate the needed
documents.
(5) Subpoena may not be made and enforced in
the field.
10

(6) Subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review
of reasonableness of demand prior to
suffering penalties for refusal to comply.
iii. Imposition of fines and penalties
o Agencies have the power to impose fines and penalties
o TEST FOR VALID IMPOSITION (Ocean Steam Navigation v
Stranahan)
(1) Subject matter must be within the authority of Congress
to legislate
(2) Penalty to be imposed must be administrative or civil in
character
(3) Agency expressly authorized to impose penalty
o NOTE: A fine in the nature of a civil penalty that is
exacted not so much as a penalty for the violation of
administrative rules but for the need to stress
desistance from wanton disregard of existing rules,
regulations, or requirements, is an administrative
penalty which administrative officers are empowered
to impose without criminal prosecution. [Civil
Aeronautics Board v Phil. Airlines]
c. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards
i. Interest of law and order (Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro)
ii. Public interest (People v Rosenthal and Osmena)
iii. Justice, equity and substantial merits of the case (International
Hardwood and Veneer Co. v Pangil Federation)
iv. What is moral, educational or amusing – evaluated from the
sense and experience of men (Mutual Film Corp. v Industrial
Commission)
v. What is sacrilegious – not a valid standard; it is not the business
of government to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a
particular religious doctrine (Burstyn v Wilson)
vi. Adequate and sufficient instruction (PACU v Secretary)
vii. Reasonableness as an implied standard in every law (Wisconsin
Inspenction Bureau v Whitman)
viii. To promote simplicity, economy, or efficiency (Cervantes v
Auditor General)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
ix. Maintain monetary stability, promote rising level of production
and real income (People v Joliffe)
IV. Administrative Procedure
a. In Rule Making
(See discussion, supra)
b. In Price, Wage or Rate fixing
(See discussion, supra)
c. In Licensing
(See discussion, supra)
d. In Adjudication of Cases
i. Rules of Procedure
Book VII, Sec. 10. Compromise and Arbitration. – To
expedite administrative proceedings involving conflicting
rights or claims and obviate expensive litigations, every
agency shall, in the public interest, encourage amicable
settlement, comprise and arbitration.
Sec. 11. Notice and Hearing in Contested Cases. –
(1) In any contested case all parties shall be entitled to notice
and hearing. The notice shall be served at least 5 days
before the date of the hearing and shall state the date, time
and place of the hearing.
(2) The parties shall be given opportunity to present evidence
and argument on all issues. If not precluded by law,
informal disposition may be made of any contested case by
stipulation, agreed settlement or default.
(3) The agency shall keep an official record of its proceedings.
Sec. 12. Rules of Evidence. - In a contested case:
(1) The agency may admit and give probative value to
evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men
in the conduct of their affairs.
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of
copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily available.
11

Upon request, the parties shall be given opportunity to
compare the copy with the original. If the original is in the
official custody of a public officer, a certified copy thereof
may be accepted.
(3) Every party shall have the right to cross-examine
witnesses presented against him and to submit rebuttal
evidence.
(4) The agency may take notice of judicially cognizable facts
and of generally cognizable technical or scientific facts
within its specialized knowledge. The parties shall be
notified and afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so
noticed.
Sec. 13. Subpoena. - In any contested case, the agency shall
have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the
production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent
data, upon request of any party before or during the hearing
upon showing of general relevance. Unless otherwise provided
by law, the agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid
of the Regional Trial Court within whose jurisdiction the
contested case being heard falls. The Court may punish
contumacy or refusal as contempt.
Sec. 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the agency in
a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The agency
shall decide each case within 30 days following its submission.
The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by
registered mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or
to them.
Sec. 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency shall
become final and executory 15 days after the receipt of a copy
thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that
period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper,
has been perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be
filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period.
ii. Due Process
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
1) Cardinal Primary Rights
Ang Tibay v Court of Industrial Relations:
The 7 cardinal rights are:
(1) Right to a hearing.
 Includes the right of a part to present his own
case and submit evidence in support thereof.
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
(3) Decision must be supported by evidence.
(4) Evidence must be substantial; i.e. more than a
mere scintilla, such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
reasonable would opine otherwise.
(5) Decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
 Only by confining the administrative tribunal to
the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the
latter be protected in their right to know and
meet the case against them.
(6) Judge must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts
 Must not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision.
(7) Decision rendered in such a manner as to let the
parties know the various issues involved and the
reasons for the decision rendered.
2) Notice and Hearing
3) Form and Promulgation of Judgment
iii. Jurisdiction
iv. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings arising from the
same facts
v. Rules of Evidence
12

V. Judicial Review of Administrative Action
It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies
exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power, there is an
underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such
agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no
right of review is given by statute (San Miguel Corp. v. SOLE,
1975).
The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative
agency within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights
of the parties affected by its decisions.
Framework of analysis:
1) Availability of judicial review
2) Scope or extent of judicial review (question of law,
fact, discretion, policy)
3) Mode of judicial review (certiorari, review on
certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, declaratory relief,
habeas corpus, preliminary injunction)
a. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative Decisions
Rule: Principle of non quieta movere; Public interest
requires that proceedings already terminated should not
be altered at every step. This is a fundamental principle in
our justice system, without which there would be no end to
litigations.
 If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency
to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to
the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the
statute by regulation. A court may not substitute
its own construction for a reasonable
interpretation made by the administrative agency
(Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 1984).
 The Office of the President may not, by a “Win-Win
Resolution” modify a decision by the DAR that has
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
already become final and executory. The orderly
administration of justice requires that
judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial
body must reach a point of finality set by the law,
rules and regulations (Fortich v. Corona,1998).
Exceptions:
 There are limits to the exercise of administrative
discretion. Administrative proceedings may be
reviewed by the courts upon a showing that the
board or official has gone beyond his statutory
authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or
clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his
duty or with grave abuse of discretion (Manuel v.
Villena, 1971).
*Note: The enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies
reviewable by the CA under Rule 43 is not exclusive. Thus,
decisions of quasi-judicial agencies like the BSP Monetary
Board may be appealed to the CA via Rule 43 (UCPB v. E.
Guanzon, 2009).
b. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Purpose: to enable the agency to correct its own errors;
out of comity, convenience, or expedient courtesy
Applicability: The principle of administrative agencies
applies only where the act of the administrative agency
concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial
function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its
rule-making or quasi-legislative power.
Rule: Where the law has delineated the procedure by
which administrative appeal/remedy could be effected, the
same should be followed before recourse to judicial action
can be initiated.
Exceptions:
13
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT

1. Violation of due process agency should be taken first to that agency, even if the case
2. Purely legal question that will ultimately have to be in theory could be taken into court (Texas & Pac. Railway
decided by courts of justice Co. v. Abilene, 1907: on uniform “just and reasonable”
3. Where the challenged administrative act is patently rates).
illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction
4. Estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine Purpose: Serves as a guide to the judge as to when he
5. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction should yield his concurrent jurisdiction, ie when the issue
that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant requires the expertise of the agency, because where there
6. Irreparable injury is concurrent jurisdiction, the court which takes
7. Qualified political agency cognizance of the case first assumes jurisdiction.
8. Requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies
would be unreasonable Applicability: The doctrine applies where claim is
9. Amounts to a nullification of a claim originally cognizable in the courts but have been placed
10. Subject matter is a private land in land case within the special competence of an administrative body
proceedings
11. No plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the Requisites:
ordinary course of law 1. There must be a concurrence of jurisdiction between
12. Urgency the regular court and the administrative agency.
13. Law is voluntary or permissive 2. The question or issue involved requires the technical
14. Strong public interest involved expertise of the agency.
15. Quo warranto proceeding 3. The legislative intent on the matter is to have
16. Claim involved is small uniformity in rulings.
17. No administrative review provided by law 4. The administrative agency is performing a quasi-
18. Non-exhaustion rendered moot judicial function.

Effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies:
Failure to observe the doctrine of administrative remedies
does not affect the court’s jurisdiction. The only effect of
non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the
complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a
motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this
ground is deemed waived and the court can take
cognizance of the case and try it (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, 1996).
c. Primary Jurisdiction or Preliminary Resort
Rule: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires that a
dispute that fits within the jurisdiction of an administrative
Effect on the action commenced in the regular court:
The application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does
not call for the dismissal of the case in the RTC. It need only
be suspended until after the matters within the agency’s
competence are threshed out and determined (Industrial
Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 1990).
d. Standing to Challenge
Rule: Locus standi is defined as “the right of appearance in
a court of justice on a given question”. It requires that the
party bringing a case before the court has a personal and
substantial interest in a case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the

14

governmental act that is being challenged. The question is
whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome
of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
questions.
VI.
Tests (Association of Data Processing Service Organization
v. Camp, 1970):
1. Zone of interests test: requires that the interest
sought to be protected be the sort of interest the
statute was designed to protect.
2. Injury-in-fact test: Whether the plaintiff alleged that
the challenged action had caused or is likely to cause
him injury in fact, economic, or otherwise. It must not
be speculative or merely conjectural.
For a taxpayer’s suit, there must be an allegation of illegal
disbursement of public funds.
Dean Carlota (dissenting to Kilosbayan v. Morato, 1995):
For as long as petitioner is challenging the validity of an
official government action, even if it does not involve a
specific constitutional issue, one is entitled to invoke the
rules on standing, particularly the injury-in-fact test.
e. Ripeness
Applicability: rule-making, policy-making and quasi-
legislative functions of the agency
Purpose (Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 1967):
1) To prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature
adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract
disagreements over administrative policies, and
2) To protect the agencies from judicial interference until
an administrative decision has been formalized and its
effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.
Test (Plaintiff must satisfy both):
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
1. Fitness test: case is ripe for judicial review as where
legal issues are involved; AND
2. Hardship test: consider the hardship to the parties by
withholding court consideration, ie when petitioner is
exposed to sanctions for non-compliance.
Modes of Judicial Review
a. Certiorari
Definition: A writ emanating from a superior court
directed against an inferior court, tribunal or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
Nature and Purpose: A prerogative writ not demandable
as a matter of right to set aside or nullify orders of
proceedings assumed under error of jurisdiction.
The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed
for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of
judgment. The reason is that when a court exercises its
jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not
deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error
is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court
would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous
judgment would be a void judgment (Purefoods
Corporation v. NLRC, 1989).
Ground: Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction: whimsical, capricious, arbitrary,
despotic attitude.
Requisites:
1. There must be a controversy
2. Respondent is exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions
3. Respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
or acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction
15

4. There must be no appeal or other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
Ever since appeals from the NLRC to the SC were
eliminated, the legislative intentment was that the special
civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle
for judicial review of NLRC decisions. Consequently, all
such petitions must be initially filed in the CA in strict
observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
proper forum (St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 1998).
b. Prohibition
Definition: Writ issued by superior court and directed
against an inferior court, board, officer, or other person
whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
functions for the purpose of preventing the latter from
usurping jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested.
Nature and Purpose: Preventive remedy to put a stop to
proceedings.
Requisites:
1. There must be a controversy
2. Respondent is exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial functions
3. Respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
or acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction
4. There must be no appeal or other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
The legal basis for a petition for prohibition in deportation
cases is the absence of the jurisdictional fact of alienage. A)
Mere allegation of citizenship does not divest the
Deportation Board of authority to hear the case. It has the
power, in the first instance, to determine the respondent’s
nationality. B) However, when the evidence submitted by
respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
immediate review by should be recognized and the courts
should promptly enjoin deportation proceedings. C)
Finally, where the evidence of citizenship or alienage is not
conclusive in either case, recourse to the courts is
preferable (Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board, 1955).
c. Mandamus
Definition: Writ issued in the name of the State to an
inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person,
commanding the performance of an act which the law
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.
Nature and Purpose: Affirmative if performance of a
legally mandated duty is ordered; Negative if ordered to
desist from excluding another from a right or office. The
purpose is to compel the performance, when refused, of a
ministerial duty.
Requisites:
1. There must be a clear and convincing legal right or
duty
2. The act to be performed must be practical (within the
powers of the respondent)
3. Respondent must be exercising a ministerial duty (not
involving the exercise of discretion)
4. The duty or act to be performed must be existing
5. There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law
Where a pension board or officer simply refuses to take any
action whatever, the court will issue a mandamus to
compel it or him to take action, but will not attempt to
prescribe the action to be taken and thereby control the
discretion or judgment of the board or officer (Palicarpio v.
Phil. Veterans Board, 1956).
Mandamus is employed to compel the performance of a
ministerial duty. But mandamus does not lie to require
16

anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a
course of conduct (Province of Pangasinan v. Reparations
Commission, 1977).
d. Declaratory Relief
Applicability: Subject matter must be either a deed, will,
contract or other written instrument, statute, executive
order, or regulation or ordinance; and the issue must be
with regard to the validity or construction of the subject
matter
Purpose: To seek a declaration of rights, against the
common law rule that no such declaration may be judicially
adjudged unless a right has been violated and for the
violation of which relief may granted.
Requisites:
1. Subject matter is a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statute, executive order, or regulation or
ordinance
2. Actual justiciable controversy or ‘ripening seeds’ of
one between persons whose interests are adverse.
3. No breach of documents in question
4. Doubtful as to the terms and validity of the document
and require judicial construction
5. Issue is ripe for judicial determination, as where all
administrative remedies have been exhausted.
6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or
other forms of action or proceeding
Inapplicable in:
 Citizenship: Citizenship cannot be determined in
a complaint for declaratory judgment or relief, for
the subject matter of such proceeding does not
involve a deed, will, contract, other written
instrument, statute, executive order, regulation or
ordinance. The petitioner should proceed to
exercise her rights as a citizen and submit
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
evidence and seek relief from the courts only if
these are controverted by the administrative
agency (Azajar v. Ardalles, 1955).
 Breach of contract or statute: The general
purpose of a declaratory judgment is to provide for
adjudication of the legal rights, duties, or status of
respective parties. The action must be brought
before there has been a breach of a contract or
statute the construction of which is sought, else, it
will result in multiplicity of suits (De Borja v.
Villadolid, 1949).
 Tax collection cases: Declaratory relief is
unavailable in cases involving collection of taxes.
To allow a taxpayer to first secure a ruling as
regards the validity of the tax before paying it
would defeat the purpose of preventing delay in
the collection of taxes to the prejudice of the
Government and the public. Thus, the taxpayer’s
remedy is to pay the tax and sue for its recovery
within the period limited by law (National Dental
Supply Co. v. Meer, 1951).
e. Habeas Corpus
Definition: Writ directed to person detaining another
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a
designated time and place, with the day and cause of his
capture and detention, to do, submit to, and receive
whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall
consider in that behalf.
Purpose: Not to determine the prisoner’s guilt or
innocence but ascertain whether he is restrained of his
liberty without due process of law
The protection against deprivation of liberty without due
process of law is not limited to Philippine citizens but
extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of
nationality. The court has the power to order the release of
17

an alien who has been detained for an unreasonably long
period of time after it has become apparent that although a
warrant for his deportation has been issued, the same
cannot be effectuated (Majoff v. Director of Prisons, 195!).
f. Injunction as Provisional Remedy
Definition: Judicial writ, process, or proceeding whereby a
party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a particular act
Nature and Purpose: An ancillary or preventive remedy
where a court requires a person, party, inferior court or
tribunal either to refrain (prohibitory) or to perform
(mandatory) particular acts during the pendency of an
action. The purpose is to preserve the status quo or to
prevent future wrongs in order to preserve and protect
certain or rights during the pendency of the action.
Requisites:
1. There must be a verified application
2. The applicant must establish that he has a right to be
protected, and the act against which the injunction is
sought violates such right
3. The applicant must also establish that there is a need
to restrain the commission or continuance of the acts
complained of, and if not enjoined, would work
injustice to him
4. A bond must be posted, unless otherwise exempted by
the court
5. The threatened injury must be incapable of pecuniary
estimation
The requirement of the bond as a condition precedent to
the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction applies
only in cases where the processes by which the collection
sought to be made by means thereof are carried out in
consonance with the law, and not when said processes are
obviously in violation of the law to the extreme that they
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
have to be suspended for jeopardizing the interests of the
taxpayer (Collector v. Reyes, 1957).
The CFI, as a court of general jurisdiction, has no
jurisdiction to grant injunctive reliefs against incident to a
Workmen’s Compensation case, which is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Worken’s Compensation
Commission or SC on appeal (Nocnoc v. Vera, 1979).
In cases of extreme urgency; where petitioner's right to the
writ is clear; where considerations of relative
inconvenience are strongly in his favor; where there
appears to be a willful invasion of petitioner's right, the
injury inflicted upon him being a continuing one; and
where the effect of the mandatory injunction would not be
to create a new relation between the parties but solely to
re-establish a pre-existing relation between them recently
and arbitrarily interrupted by the respondent, courts
should not hesitate in granting the writ of prelim injunction
(Lemi v. Valencia, 1963).
VII. Extent of Judicial Review
a. The Law-Fact Distinction – applicability of the Substantial
Evidence Rule
Findings of Fact v. Conclusions of Law. But there may be
mixed questions of fact and law: ie “Are the rates
reasonable?”
Where the question is whether from the evidence
submitted by the parties it could fairly be concluded that a
conclusion of law had been properly drawn, the case is
reviewable by the courts (Dauan v. Sec of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, 1967).
Legal implications—such as right to compensation,
succession, the legal status of the wife—are so important
that courts should not so easily be carried to the conclusion
that the man is dead. Non-controversion in compensation
18

cases, as in the case of pleadings in ordinary civil cases,
simply means admission of facts, not conclusions of law
(Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. Pepito, 1966).
b. Questions of Law – Even if the statute is silent as to the
availability of judicial review, it is available, because the
Judiciary is the final interpreter of the law.
While findings of fact by the Director of Lands are
conclusive, his decision as regards a question of law (on the
issue of citizenship) is in no sense conclusive upon the
courts. In other words, any action of the Director of Lands
which is based upon a misconstruction of the law can be
corrected by the courts (Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion,
1934).
c. Questions of Fact
Substantial Evidence Rule: Findings of fact, if supported
by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole,
is binding upon the reviewing courts, unless otherwise
provided by law (Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 1951).
EO 297, Book VII, Sec. 25 (7): Review shall be made on the
basis of the record taken as a whole. The findings of fact of
the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall
be final except when specifically provided otherwise by
law.
Note: Legal Toolkit: Question substantiality of the
evidence so it becomes a legal question that will force
the courts to examine the record.
Exception: GADALEJ
d. Questions of Discretion – Attitude of the reviewing court
is restraint if what is involved is the exercise of discretion
granted to that administrative agency. However, if this
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
discretion is gravely abused, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, then the courts will review or intervene.
Erroneous application of the significance of competing
facts does not mean that it has abused its discretion. Well
established is the rule that the SC will not substitute its
judgment for that of the PSC, and the statute explicitly
provides that its orders should be reversed only if it is 1)
without reasonable support in evidence, 2) rendered
against law, or 3) issued without jurisdiction (Laguna
Tayabas Bus Co. v. PSC, 1957).
NTC’s findings as to the grant or denial of applications
should be given weight, considering that it si the
government agency charged with passing upon
applications for certificates of public convenience and
necessity. It is authorized to determine what the specific
operating and technical requirements of “public
convenience and necessity” are in the field of
telecommunications. Courts should not intervene in that
administrative process, save upon a very clear showing of
serious violation of law or of fraud, personal malice or
wanton oppression (PLDT v. NTC, 1995).
e. Questions of Policy – Generally non-judicial business, but
the courts may be constrained to consider policy
questioned inextricably linked with questions of law
(polycentric).
VIII. Enforcement of Agency Action
a. Res Judicata; Finality of Judgment
A judicial doctrine intended to put an end to litigation: “A
matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided;
a thing or matter settled by judgment”
19

Bar by Prior Judgment: Claim judgment – first judgment
is a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same
claim, demand, or cause of action
Requisites:
1. The former judgment must be final
2. Rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties
3. It must be a judgment on the merits
4. There must be, between the 1st and 2nd actions: a)
identity of parties, b) identity of subject matter, c)
identity of cause of action
While it is true that this Court has declared that the
doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial and quasi-
judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of
administrative powers, SC has also limited the latter to
proceedings purely administrative in nature. Therefore,
when the administrative proceedings take on an adversary
character, the doctrine of res judicata certainly applies
(Heirs of Maximo Derla v. Heirs of Catalina Derla vda. De
Hipolito, 2011).
Conclusiveness of Judgment: Issue preclusion – first
judgment precludes the re-litigation of a particular fact or
issue in another action between the same parties on a
different cause of action. This rule does not apply to issues
of law or where the issues in the 2 cases are not identical.
Requisites:
1. The issues must be identical
2. The adjudication of an issue in the 1st case is not
conclusively of an entirely different and distinct issue
arising in the 2nd
3. It must clearly and positively appear, either from the
record itself or by the aid of competent extrinsic
evidence that the precise point or question in issue in
the 2nd suit was involved and decided in the 1st suit
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT
b. Writ of Execution; Mandamus
 Writ of Execution: The grant to a tribunal or
agency of adjudicatory power, or the authority to
hear and adjudge cases, should normally and
logically be deemed to include the grant of
authority to enforce or execute the judgments it
thus renders, unless the law otherwise provides
(GSIS v. CSC, 1991).
Requisites:
1. The writ of execution must be valid, must
conform strictly to the decision or judgment
which gives it life
2. It cannot vary the terms of the judgment it
seeks to enforce.
The power to enforce awards under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act is expressly vesred
in the Commission or duly deputized officials of
the DOLE. Execution is a necessary step in the
enforcement of the award, and while it is
procedural in nature and therefore essentially falls
within the rule-making power of the SC, it may be
legislated upon by Congress under its
constitutional authority to repeal, alter or
supplement rules concerning pleading, practice
and procedure (Apolega v. Hizon, 1968).
 Mandamus: A final and executory award entitles
petitioner to its enforcement according to its
letter. It is not susceptible to any change or
alteration by the officer charged by its
implementation, as the latter’s duty on the matter
constitutes only a ministerial act compellable by
mandamus where there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
(Vda. De Corpuz v. The Commanding General, Phil.
Army, 1978).
20
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CARLOTA) – FINALS REVIEWER | CJ ANGAT

 Contempt – by the agency if expressly granted the

power to cite in contempt; and through the courts
in the absence of such authority

 Action for damages under Article 27, Civil Code:

“Any person suffering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official
duty may file an action for damages and other
relief against the latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be
taken.”

21