Administrative Law: General Principles

REVIEW NOTES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | RM SANTIAGO | 2020-2021 1
Types of Administrative Bodies

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 1. Those offering some grant, gratuity or privilege;
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW - GSIS, SSS, Philippine Veterans’ Affairs
2. Those seeking to carry on certain business of
From the Lectures of Deputy Ombudsman Rodolfo M. Elman government
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law 3. Those performing business service for the public
4. Those seeking to regulate businesses affected with
public interest
GENERAL PRINCIPLES 5. Those seeking under police power to regulate private
business and individuals
Definition 6. To adjust individual controversies
Administrative law is a branch of public law which fixes the
administration of government, determines competence of the Q. How to determine whether body is administrative or judicial?
administrative authorities and also indicates to individuals of his
remedies whenever there is violation of his right. It is a system > It is administrative where its functions are regulatory even if it
of legal principles which settles the conflicting claims of the hears and determines a controversy. If it performs quasi-judicial
executive and administrative authorities on one hand and of the powers, it is simply incidental to its regulatory function. When
individual or private right on the other. It also deals with the given quasi-legislative powers, it is not an undue delegation of
powers and procedures of administrative agencies, including legislative power, but a relaxation of the rule.
judicial review.
> It is judicial, if its primary duty is to decide legal rights and not
Scope: It covers all portions of public law dealing with the as incident of regulatory function.
actions of executive and administrative officials.
GRP, National Government, Agency, Instrumentality
Purpose
(1) To promote order; Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)
(2) To promote general welfare; and It refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the
(3) To promote public interest. functions of government are exercised throughout Philippines,
including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the
Subject Matter: It is the nature and mode of exercise of the various arms through which political authority is made effective
administrative power and the system of relief that may be in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous
invoked by the individual considering the administrative action. regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions
or other forms of local government (Section 2[1]), EO 292).
Function of Administrative Law: It is to enable the government
machinery to work well in an orderly an efficient manner, National Government
because the government has to be effective in order to respond It refers to the entire machinery of the central government, as
to the needs of individuals. distinguished from the different forms of local governments
(Section 2[2], EO 292).
Origin of Administrative Law
It is said to originate in legislation and precedes from increased > Not synonymous. National government does not mean GRP,
functions of individuals because of the complexities of the national government refers to the entire machinery of the central
modern society. It is usually the so-called “fourth branch of the government composed of the executive, legislative, and judicial
government.” The legislature itself passed laws creating the departments, as distinguished from the different forms of local
admins authorities for the latter to respond to the needs of the governments (MCIAA v. MARCOS, 261 SCRA 670).
individuals and there are instances that the judiciary will not be
efficient in respondent to the pressing needs of individuals. It > National government is a part of the GRP, but it does not
originates in legislation and proceeds in multifarious functions include local governments, it only refers to central government.
being performed by individuals.
§1. Is Central Bank part of National Government? – In this
Rule of Construction case, Central Bank unilaterally rescinded an agreement arguing
Statutes conferring powers on administrative agencies must be that there was yet no contract because there was no showing of
liberally construed to enable them to discharge their assigned a certificate of availability of funds for the project. Held: Central
duties in accordance with the legislative purpose (Matienzo v. Bank is not a part of the National Government, to be sure, the
Abellera, 162 SCRA 2). Central Bank is a government instrumentality, but it was
created as an autonomous body under RA 265 “to administer
Constitutional Law Administrative Law the monetary and banking system of the country.” (CENTRAL
Prescribes permanent Carries into effect the plan of BANK v. ABLAZA, 63 SCRA 431).
framework of the system of governmental organization
government, supplies and executed what has been §2. Is the National Coconut Company within the term GRP
general plan of prescribed by the for purposes of exemption from stenographic fees. – No.
governmental organization Constitution GRP does not include entities which are to be given corporate
Prescribes limitations on the Provides relief to individuals personality separate and distinct from the government and
exercise of governmental should there be violations of which are governed by the Corporation Law, such as the
power so as to protect the their rights by official National Coconut Corporation.” Their powers, duties and
rights of individual against governmental action liabilities be determined in light of law and corporate characters
abuse in their exercise (BACANI v. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, 63 SCRA 431).
Stresses rights of citizens Gives stress on their duties
to the government. Are GOCCs embraced in the term GRP? They are included in
the GRP if such GOCCs perform sovereign tasks.
Agency §3. DOH is an unincorporated agency. – The DOH is an

It refers to any of the various units of the Government, including unincorporated agency performs functions of governmental
a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government- character. As such, DOH can invoke the defense of immunity
owned or controlled corporations, or a local government or a from suit because it has not consented, either expressly or
distinct unit therein (Section 2[4], EO 292). impliedly, to be sued. The mantle of non-suability extends to
complaints filed against public officials for acts done in the
Instrumentality performance of their official functions (DOH v. PHIL PHARMA
It refers to any agency of National Government, not integrated WEALTH, G.R. No. 182538 [2013]).
within the department framework vested within special functions
or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational
autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes Definition
regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government- Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot and will
owned or controlled corporations (Section 2[10], EO 292). not determine a controversy involving a question which is within
the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the
§1. MIAA is not a GOCC but rather an instrumentality. – In question demands exercise of sound administrative discretion
this case the City Treasurer issued notices of levy against the requiring special knowledge, experience, and services of the
MIAA. The Court held that MMIAA is not a government-owned administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
and controlled corporation, but is an instrumentality vested with matters of facts and where a uniformity of ruling is essential to
corporate powers to perform essentially government function. comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute which is to be
Note that when the law vests in a government instrumentality administered.
corporate powers, it does not become a corporation, unless it is
organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. It remains as a Applicability
government instrumentality exercising not only governmental It applies where a claim requires resolution of issues within the
but also corporate powers (MIAA v. CA, 495 SCRA 592). special competence of an administrative body in such case, the
judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to
§2. National Power Corporation is an instrumentality. – the administrative body for its view.
Under the LGC, a member of the Sanggunian cannot appear as
counsel in a case against an instrumentality or agency of the DOES NOT APPLY: Where there is concurrence of jurisdiction
government. Can they represent NPC? Held: No. Rambuyong between two disciplining authorities over a case, the regular
cannot appear as counsel in this case for damages against NPC courts not being involved.
because NPC is an instrumentality of the Government. While
NPC is a GOCC, the term “instrumentality” under EO 292 Purposes
includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and GOCC The objective of the doctrine is to guide the court in determining
(REPUBLIC v. RAMBUYONG, 632 SCRA 66). whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until an
administrative agency has determined some question or some
To reiterate, the NPC is a government instrumentality (since aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the
GOCCs are part of the definition of instrumentality) tasked to court. Specifically, there are two reasons for the doctrine:
undertake hydroelectric generation of power and production of (1) To give administrative agency the opportunity to decide
electricity from other resources to improve the quality of life of the controversy by itself correctly; and
people (MACEDA v. MACARAIG, 197 SCRA 771). (2) To prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the
courts; in the process de-clogging court dockets.
Incorporated vs. Unincorporated Government Agencies
Jurisprudence
Rules
[1] When the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency §1. Courts cannot issue replevin of logs seized by DENR
expires, the powers, duties and functions, as well as the assets which is in charge of enforcing forestry laws. – DENR is the
and liabilities of the agency revert back to and are assumed by, agency responsible for enforcement of forestry laws. The
the Republic of the Philippines, in absence of special provisions complaint for replevin itself stated that members of the DENR
of law specifying some other disposition. Hence, the GRP may Task Force Sagip Kalikasan took over the forest products and
substitute a non-incorporated agency in the case. brought them to the DENR CENRO. Held: A party must exhaust
all administrative remedies before he can resort to the courts. All
[2] But for incorporated agencies, the GRP may not substitute actions seeking to recover forest products in the custody of the
because they have an independent personality. DENR shall be directed to the DENR. Forest products are
already in custodia legis and cannot be subject of replevin.
§1. Status of Iron and Steel Authority. – ISA instituted a case Thus, the court cannot take cognizance of the replevin case, it
for expropriation, but while the case was pending its statutory constitutes gross ignorance of the law (TASK FORCE SAGIP
term under EO 555 had expired. Can GRP substitute? Yes. KALIKASAN v. JUDGE PADERANGA [2008]).
Since ISA is a non-incorporated authority, GRP could substitute
it as ISA (ISA v. CA, 249 SCRA 539). §1. As to Deportations. –
§2. Unincorporated agency enjoys immunity from suit in the General Rule: Bureau of Immigration has primary jurisdiction
exercise of governmental functions. – An unincorporated over deportation cases.
government agency without any separate juridical personality of
its own enjoys immunity because it is invested with an inherent Exception:
power of sovereignty. Hence a claim for damages against it (1) When the court believes there is substantial evidence
cannot prosper, otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is supporting the deportee’s claim of citizenship; or
violated (ATO v. RAMOS, 644 SCRA 36). While such has immunity, (2) When the evidence submitted by the deportee is
it if exercises proprietary functions – no immunity applies. conclusive of his citizenship.
Note that citizenship proceedings are sui generis, in that unlike §2. Reimbursement of expenses incurred by homeowners
other cases, res judicata does not generally obtain. In GO SR. v. in repairing defective housing units. – In this case, complaint
RAMOS (598 SCRA 268), the [Bureau] of Immigration has the was for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in repairing
authority to hear and determine the deportation case against a their defective housing units constructed by petitioners. Clearly,
deportee and in the process determine also the question of HLURB had jurisdiction to hear the case. The delivery of
citizenship raised by him. The Board’s jurisdiction is not divested habitable houses was the responsibility of HLC under their
by the mere claim of citizenship. A deportee who claims to be a contract with respondents. The trial court should have granted
citizen and not therefore subject to deportation has the right to the motion to dismiss filed by petitioners so that the issues
have his citizenship reviewed by the courts, after the deportation therein could be expeditiously heard and resolved by the
proceedings. The decision of the Board is of course, not final but HLURB (HLC v. EMILY HOMES 411 SCRA 504).
subject to review by the Courts.
§3. Administrative fines only. – HLURB has no power to
DOCTRINE OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION impose criminal penalties only administrative fines. Courts are
the ones who will impose the criminal violations of the provision.
Applicability: This doctrine applies only whenever it is the court The IRR expressly acknowledge that two separate remedies
and the administrative agency which have the concurrent with differing consequences may be sought, administrative
jurisdiction. [court and administrative agency] remedy and criminal prosecution (CHUA v. ANG, 598 SCRA 321).
Inapplicability: The doctrine is not applicable where there is §4. Can award damages. – The HLURB is competent to award
concurrence of jurisdiction between two disciplining authorities damages although such is essentially a judicial power that is
over a case (e.g. CSC and OMB), the regular courts not being exercised only by the courts. In the exercise of its powers then,
involved. What applies in this instance is the Exclusionary Rule, the HLURB must interpret and apply contracts, and award the
the tribunal that takes cognizance first of the complaint excludes damages if appropriate (REALTY EXCHANGE v. SENDINO).
the other equally competent administrative authority.
§5. HLURB also has jurisdiction to declare void a mortgage that
§1. COSLAP does not have jurisdiction over private lands. is done in violation of PD 957 and annul a foreclosure sale that
– The jurisdiction of the COSLAP (Commission on Settlement of was made thereon (HOME BANKERS v. CA, 547 SCRA 167).
Land Problems) under EO 561 is limited only to those involving
public lands or those covered by specific license – pasture lease §6. Decisive element is the nature of action. – Mere allegation
agreements, timber concessions or reservation grants. It does of relationship between owner and buyer does not vest any
not have jurisdiction over Gatdula’s complaint against Machado automatic jurisdiction in HLURB. Decisive element is the nature
for right of way since the property is private. Lack of jurisdiction of the action as enumerate in Section 1 of PD 1344. Here, the
cannot be cured by the parties’ participation. The issues raised complaint for cancellation of contract, recovery of possession of
in the present case primarily involve the application of the Civil townhouse involving a third person is within the jurisdiction of
Code provisions which requires no special skill or technical the court. The issue in this case is not any of the three cases
expertise, a dispute between two parties concerning the right of mentioned in Section 1 (CADIMAS v. CARRION, 567 SCRA 103).
way over private lands cannot be characterized falling under its
jurisdiction (MACHADO v. GATDULA & COSLAP [2010]). §7. HLURB has jurisdiction for specific performance filed
by homeowners against developer even if latter is under
§2. CHED does not have jurisdiction over damages. – The receivership. – The HLURB and not the SEC has jurisdiction
rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where administrative over a complaint filed by subdivision owners against subdivision
agency exercise quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions. Here, develop for specific performance regarding basic homeowners’
RTC – and not CHED – has jurisdiction over the complaint for needs such as water, security and open spaces even if the
damages against UST. In addition, the doctrine on exhaustion developer was under receivership (ARRANZA v. BF HOMES).
of administrative remedies does not apply in this case because
recourse to CHED for damages is not mandatory. CHED does §8. No forum shopping for specific performance in HLURB
not posses any power to investigate facts or ascertain existence and collection suit in courts. – There is no forum shopping
of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, etc. (UST v. SANCHEZ) where HL Carlos, the contractor, sues before HLURB to enforce
a Contract to Purchase and files another suit in court to collect
HLURB Jurisdiction money as to unpaid billings from Construction Contract (MARINA
PROPERTIES CORPORATIONO v. CA, 294 SCRA 273).
Section 1, of PD 1344 provides that the HLURB shall have the
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
(a) Unsound real estate business practices;
(b) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by Amendment by PD 902-A – It transferred jurisdiction of SEC
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the over intra-corporate or partnership cases to the courts.
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman;
(c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual However when there is a claim or criminal charge for violate of
and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision the Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799), the SEC must first
lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, look into the same under the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction,
dealer, broker, or salesman. then it should refer to the Department of Justice for Preliminary
Investigation which interrupts the prescriptive period, otherwise
§1. Specific performance with damages in the delivery of the prosecutor has the competence to dismiss the case. In short,
Certificate of Title. – The complaint for specific performance SEC retained jurisdiction to investigation albeit in limited sense.
with damages filed with the RTC comes under the jurisdiction of Additionally, the SEC may still impose administrative sanction
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), where under the law (SEC v. INTERPORT RESOURCES, 567 SCRA 365).
the buyer of a subdivision lot seeks specific performance of the The Court declared that it is imperative that criminal prosecution
obligation of the seller to deliver to him the corresponding be initiated before the SEC, the administrative agency with the
certificate of title (CT TORRES v. HIBIONADA, 191 SCRA 268). special performance.
Toll Regulatory Board (PD 1112) §2. POEA’s quasi-judicial powers. – The action of the POEA
to grant, deny, suspend, revoke a license of any private
§1. Issues involving toll rates. – The remedy of interested placement agency is quasi-judicial. POEA, on its own initiative,
expressway user who finds the toll rate adjustments then to be may conduct the necessary proceeding for suspension and for
onerous, oppressive and exorbitant is to file a petition for review the cancellation of license of any private placement agency on
of the adjusted toll rate with the TRB. The issue that toll rate any of the grounds mentioned therein (SANADO v. CA).
adjustment are onerous is obviously a question of fact requiring
knowledge of the formula used and factors considered, thus it is §3. NTC exercise quasi-judicial powers in exercising the
within the province of the TRB (PADUA v. RANADA). discretion to grant permit or authority. – NTC has the power
to issue certificate of public convenience and necessity for the
§2. Appeals. – The decision of the TRB is appealable within 10 installation, operation and maintenance of communication
days to the Office of the President (OP) [TRB → OP] facilities and services and determine the area of operation of
applicants for telecommunication services. The grant by NTC to
§3. Power to grant permit/certificate. – TRB is with sufficient another entity to operate in areas already covered Eastern
power to grant a qualified person or entity with the authority to Telecom is not grave abuse of discretion. NTC took into the
construct, maintain and operate a toll facility and to issue therein account the technical and financial capabilities and policy of
the corresponding operating permit or toll operation certificate. healthy competition (EASTERN TELECOM v. ICC, 435 SCRA 55).
In FRANCISCO v. TRB (2010), the Court ruled that a special §4. Preliminary investigation is not in the nature of a quasi-
franchise directly emanating from Congress is not necessary if judicial proceeding. – A preliminary investigation is not that of
the law specifically authorizes an administrative body to grant a a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the Department of Justice is not
franchise or to award a contract. By law, TRB was given the a quasi-judicial agency when it reviews findings of prosecutor as
power to grant administrative franchise for toll facility projects as to the presence of probable cause (BALANGUAN v. CA).
well as impose and alter conditions in an appropriate contract.
A preliminary is not a quasi-judicial proceeding since there the
§4. Necessity of hearings – FRANCISCO v. TRB (633 SCRA 470): prosecutor does not determine the guilt or innocence of the
accused. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial. The
Initial Toll Rates Subsequent Toll Rates prosecutor cannot be said to be acting as a quasi-court, for it is
TRB is authorized to The hearing required refers the court that ultimately passes judgment on the accused. A
approve the initial toll rates to notice and hearing for the preliminary investigation or inquisitorial power is for the sole aim
without necessity of a approval or denial of of obtaining information on what future action of judicial nature
hearing. It is only when a petitions for toll rate may be taken (BONDOC v. TAN TIONG BIO [2010]).
challenge as to the initial toll adjustments – or the
rates fixed ensues the public subsequent toll rates, not to §5. UP Board of Regents exercise certain quasi-judicial
hearings are required. the fixing of initial toll rates. powers. – UP Board of Regents is empowered to withdraw
conferment of degree founded on fraud. If the conferment of a
- Powers of Administrative Bodies - degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents is also
empowered, subject to the observance of due process, to
Q. Aside from its executive functions, what other basic powers withdraw what it has granted without violating a student’s rights.
administrative bodies can exercise? A formal type of hearing is not required (UP BOR v. CA).
(1) Quasi-legislative powers or rule-making – enables
them to promulgate the implementing rules and §6. CHR has no quasi-judicial powers only fact-finding. –
regulations; While the Constitution grants the CHR the power to investigate
(2) Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory – enables them to all forms of human rights violations involving civil or political
interpret and apply such regulations; rights, its power to investigate does not include the power to
adjudicate Fact finding is not adjudication and cannot be likened
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS to a judicial or quasi-judicial function (CARINO v. CHR).
Adjudicatory Powers §7. PTC has no quasi-judicial powers. – No quasi-judicial

It involves the power to hear and determine questions of facts to powers have been vested in the Philippine Truth Commission. It
which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide therein in cannot adjudicate rights of persons who come before it. Quasi-
accordance with the standards set by law in administering the judicial powers involve the power to hear and determine
same law. It is an express empowerment by law which is merely questions of facts to which the legislative policy is to apply and
incidental and in aid of their man function. to decide in accordance with the standards set by law in the
administering of the law (BIRAOGO v. PTC [2010]).
It involves the action or discretion to investigate facts and draw
conclusions from them as basis for their official action and to §8. IAD-ODESLA has no quasi-judicial powers. – While the
exercise discretion of a judicial nature. It involves term “adjudicatory” appears, the IAD-ODESLA cannot try and
(a) Taking and evaluating evidence; resolve cases, its authority being limited to the conduct of the
(b) Determining facts based upon the evidence presented; investigations, preparation of reports and submission of the
(c) Rendering an order or decision supported by the facts recommendations. The IAD-ODESLA is fact-finding and is
proved in such case. recommendatory body to the President, not having power to
settle controversies and adjudicate cases (PICHAY v. OCHOA).
Jurisprudence
§9. COMELEC’s cancellation of COC due to accessory
§1. PCGG is co-equal body of RTC. – PCGG exercise quasi- penalty of disqualification is not quasi-judicial. – It merely
judicial powers and has authority to issue freeze orders. Thus, performed its legal duty to cancel CoC of one suffering from the
the RTC cannot restrain its freeze orders involving companies accessory penalty of disqualification to run by virtue of final
involved in ill-gotten wealth (PCGG v. JUDGE PENA [1989]). judgment under Section 40 of LGC which is an exercise of its
administrative power. COMELEC did not exercise its quasi- §4. But there can be compelling reasons to relax the rule. –
judicial functions, nor violated petitioner’s right to due process The merits of Valera’s case are special circumstances or with
when it mot proprio issued Resolution 9613 cancelling his CoC compelling reasons to relax the rule on CNFS. It is deemed that
as it did not assume jurisdiction over any pending petition nor the appellate court correctly overlooked such procedural lapse
did it resolve any election case before it. COMELEC is duty (OMB v. VALERA, 471 SCRA 719).
bound to enforce or administer laws as to the conduct of election
(JALOSJOS v. COMELEC [2012]). §5. Dismissal of criminal case does not operate as res
judicata to the administrative case. – The decision of the
§10. Distinction. – OMB in dismissing the criminal case against the regional
director Montemayor does not operate as res judicata in PAGC
Administrative Power Quasi-Judicial Power administrative case against him involving the ill-gotten wealth
It is concerned with the work It applies to the action, (MONTEMAYOR v. BUNDALIAN, 405 SCRA 264).
of applying policies or discretion to investigate
enforcing orders and does facts and draw conclusions §6. No forum shopping if one of the entities does not
not entail opportunity to be from them as basis for their exercise judicial or quasi-judicial function. – Here, Bernas
heard, weight of evidence official action. filed two actions against Cabarrus
and decision thereon. (1) Civil case for damages arising out from perjury; and
(2) Criminal complaint to the NBI
Forum Shopping Held: There is no forum shopping since NBI does not exercise
quasi-judicial powers and the law allows the filing of a civil action
Existence of Forum Shopping and a criminal case without violating forum-shopping.
(1) When, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum,
a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal Similarly, in UST v. SANCHEZ, there can be no forum shopping if
or certiorari) in another; (res judicata); or the other action is filed with the CHED since CHED does not
(2) When he institutes two or more actions or proceedings exercise any quasi-judicial power and cannot make disposition
grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one of the case.
or that other would make a favorable disposition (litis
pendentia). §7. No identity of causes of action, no forum shopping. –
The rule on forum shopping does not apply where two cases
Where forum-shopping is deemed to exist, the summary although based on the same essential facts and circumstances
dismissal of both actions is warranted (PRUBANKERS v. does not raise identical cause of action and issues. Thus, the
PRUDENTIAL BANK, 302 SCRA 74). action filed with the CSC is administrative in nature dealing with
the proper administrative liability, if any while the case in the
Test of Violation Ombudsman deals with the criminal accountability of the
(a) Where the elements of litis pendentia are present; or respondent for violation of RA 3019 (VELASQUEZ v. HERNANDEZ
(b) Where final judgment in one case will amount to res 437 SCRA 358).
judicata in the other
§8. Exclusionary rule in case of concurrent jurisdiction
NOTE: It applies to quasi-judicial proceedings. between disciplinary bodies. – In administrative cases
involving here the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more
§1. Certificate of non-forum shopping. – The requirement to administrative authorities, the body in which the complaint is
file a certificate of non-forum shopping (CNFS), although it is not filed first, and which takes cognizance of the case, acquires
jurisdiction, it is mandatory. The failure to comply may justify the jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising the
dismissal of the suit, at the discretion of investigation officer concurrent jurisdiction. When complainants first filed the
(PASCUAL v. BELTRAN, 505 SCRA 545). complaint with the OMB, the jurisdiction is already vested with
the OMB and could no longer be transferred to the SB by virtue
§2. CNFS must be signed by all the parties. – A certification of a subsequent complaint by the same complainant (OMB v.
signed by the counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid RODRIGUEZ, 625 SCRA 299). [This is because Sanggunian has
cause for dismissal of the petition, unless he is clothed with the administrative jurisdiction of elective barangay officials].
special authority to do so. Absent showing that there was special
authority, signing by the counsel alone shall not be sufficient to QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER
comply with the CNFS requirement.
Rule Making Power
§3. Exception to the signature requirement of all the parties. Quasi-legislative power is the power of administrative bodies to
– In HLC CONSTRUCTION v. EMILY HOMES (411 SCRA 504): promulgate rules and regulations in order to carry out or to
implement provisions of law they are mandated to implement.
General Rule: While the general rule is that the CNFS must be The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies
signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one is a relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is
of them is insufficient, the rules on forum shopping were an exception to the non-delegation of legislative powers.
designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice – it does not prohibit substantial compliance with its Requirements for Validity of Rules
provisions under justifiable circumstances. In order to be valid, the administrative regulation must:
(a) Be germane to the objects and purposes of the law;
Exception: In case where it is highly impractical to require all (b) Conform to the standards that the law prescribes;
the plaintiffs to sign, it is sufficient, in order not to defeat the ends (c) Must relate solely to carry into effect the general
of justice, for one of the plaintiffs, acting as representative, to provisions of the law.
sign the CNFS provided that they share a common interest in
the subject matter of the case or files the case as a “collective” Publication – Only which are intended to apply to the public,
raising only one common cause of action or defense. such as when the rules have a punitive aspect.
Effect if issued in excess of rule-making authority: If issued in held as unconstitutional since it violates the examinees’ right to
excess of rule making authority, there is no binding effect upon liberty and the academic freedom of schools. Resolution No. 105
the courts as it is treated as mere administrative interpretations is not valid as it is unreasonable and arbitrary (LUPANGCO v. CA,
and cannot be made a conclusive basis for determining what the 160 SCRA 848).
law should be and it is subject to judicial review.
§6. MECS order phasing out Spanish is valid. – The order by
Absence of IRR does not invalidate law: If the administrative Secretary Quisumbing abolishing Spanish subject as part of the
body mandated to carry out the provision of the law does not yet curriculum and allowed Arabic as a voluntary subject is not a
issue the corresponding IRR thereto; it does not render the law violation of due process (FEDERACION v. QUISUMBING [1988]).
to become ineffective. The courts are not precluded to interpret
the law where a reasonable construction may be given (because §7. Disallowing graduates of non-conforming Nursing
there is a possibility that the law becomes effective without an Schools is valid. – When the board of examiners for the nursing
IRR yet issued by the government agency). regulation prescribed period inspection and disallowing the
graduates of those non-conforming schools to take the board
Law can allow President to suspend operation of law upon exam is valid because it is necessary to carry out to provisions
happening of an act: A statute authorizing the President to of the act – in fact the board is empowered to “issue, suspend,
suspend the operation of a law upon determination or happening revoke or reissue certificates of registration practice of nursing”
of an act, the ascertainment is left to him is valid because it under the Philippine Nursing Act (SAND v. ABAD SANTOS [1980]).
merely allows the President to implement what is provided in the
law as there is a sufficient standard. §8. Legislative Rule vs. Interpret
ative Rule
Three Categories of Rules Promulgated
By Administrative Tribunals Legislative Rule Interpretative Rule
(1) Those intended to supply details of legislation; It is in the nature of It is designed to provide
(2) Those intended to interpret or construe the particular subordinate legislation, guidelines to the law which
law being enforced; designed to implement a the administrative agency is
(3) Those intended to determine some fact or state of primary legislation by in charge of enforcing. Its
things upon which enforcement of act shall depend providing details thereof. It is applicability needs nothing
generally required that further than its bare
Jurisprudence before it may be adopted issuance for it gives no real
there should be a hearing. consequence more than the
§1. No vested right arising from wrong construction of law. law itself had already
– RMC 7-85 is not valid because it is inconsistent with the NIRC. prescribed.
When the RMC changed the prescriptive period of two (2) years It must be published It need not be published
to ten (10) years on claims for excess quarterly income tax
payments, it is not in accord with the NIRC (PHILBANK v. CIR). In CIR v. CA & FORTUNE TOBACCO (1996), BIR, via RMC 37-93,
not simply interpreted the law; verily, it legislated under quasi-
§2. Actions involving delicate adjustment of national policy legislative authority. The due observance of the requirements of
must be in a law. – AO 308 providing for adoption of a national notice, of hearing, and of publication should not have been
computerized identification reference system is unconstitutional. then ignored. The due process requirements should not have
Its establishment requires a delicate adjustment of various been ignored.
contending state policies, the primacy of national security, the
extent of privacy against dossier-gathering by the government, In addition, in CIR v. LHUILLER PAWNSHOP (2003), RMO No. 15-
and choices of policies. It deals with a subject that should be 91 and RMC No. 43-91 cannot be viewed simply as
covered by a law and not by mere administrative order in such implementing rules or corrective measures revoking in the
case (OPLE v. TORRES, 293 SCRA 272). process previous rulings of past Commissioners. Specifically,
they would have been amendatory provisions applicable to
§3. If law does not authorize a maximum limit, the circular pawnshops. Without these disputed CIR issuances, pawnshops
cannot impose such. – Local budget circular issued by the would not be liable to pay the 5% percentage tax, considering
DBM providing that the additional monthly allowances to be that they were not specifically included in Section 116 of the
given by the LGU to national government officials assigned in NIRC of 1977, as amended. In so doing, the CIR did not simply
their locality (like judgment) should not exceed P1000 xxx is interpret the law. The due observance of the requirements of
invalid as it goes beyond the law it seeks to implement, the law notice, hearing, and publication should not have been ignored.
does not authorize the setting of a definite maximum limit to the Thus, the RMO and RMC is invalid.
additional allowances granted to the judges. DBM overstepped
its powers of supervision over LGUs by imposing a prohibition §9. Power to reclassify, only with the Congress. – RR 1-97
that did not correspond with the law it sought to implement authorizes the CIR to update the tax classification of new brands
(DADOLE v. COA, 393 SCRA 272). every two (2) years or earlier, when nowhere in Sec. 145 of the
NIRC is such authority granted to the BIR. The power to
§4. Payment of legal fees cannot be modified by law or reclassify cigarette brands remains a prerogative of the
administrative rule. – It is evident that the exemption of legislature which cannot be usurped by the BIR (BRITISH
cooperatives from payment of court and sheriff’s fees no longer AMERICAN TOBACCO v. CAMACHO, 562 SCRA 519).
stands. Cooperatives can no longer invoke RA 6938, as basis
for the exemption of payment of legal fees (668 SCRA 1). §10. IRR should not amend the law. – RA 7742 provides for
only “or” while IRR provided that employers should have both
§5. Rules promulgated by administrative agencies must be provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its employees.
reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. – PRC resolution IRR is not valid as it amended RA 7742 (ROMULO & MABANTA
prohibiting attendance in accountancy review classes and v. HDMF, 333 SCRA 777).
receiving materials a few days before the CPA exam has been
§11. Administrative agencies cannot extend scope of §17. Cannot classify meat before examination. – CMO 27-
authority. – PCGG chair Salonga created “AFP Anti-Graft 2003 which classified imported meat before customs officers
Board” to investigate the unexplained wealth of AFP personnel. had the chance to examine it is contrary to Section 1403 of the
Held: PCGG has no power to investigate and prosecute for an Tariff and Customs Code which tasked customs officers to
ordinary case under RA 3019 or RA 1379 such as in the case of determine whether the packages designated for examination
Lt. Col. Tecson. It cannot do more than what it was empowered and their contents are in accordance with the declaration before
to do. Its powers are limited to the recovery of the ill-gotten the tariff may be imposed. CMO has already classified the meat
wealth of the Marcoses, their relatives and cronies (REPUBLIC v. even before examination – hence not in conformity with the law
MIGRINO, 189 SCRA 300). (COMMISSIONER v. HYPERMIX FEEDS, 664 SCRA 666).
§12. Rule-making power should not be used to abridge the §18. No law granting DOJ Secretary to issue hold departure
authority given to it or enlarge its power. – The SSS, orders. – To begin with, there is no law particularly providing for
promulgated Resolution No. 56, provided to SSS employees the authority of the secretary of justice to curtail the exercise of
(who are government employees) a supplementary pension or the right to travel, in the interest of national security, public safety
retirement plan in violation of Teves Law – SSS cannot in guise or public health. A painstaking examination of the provisions
of rule-making, violate or amend laws (CONTE v. COA). being relied upon by the former DOJ Secretary will disclose that
Note: The Teves Retirement Law (RA 4968) bars the creation of they do not particularly vest the DOJ the authority to issue DOJ
any insurance or retirement plan – other than the GSIS – for Circular No. 41 which effectively restricts the right to travel
government employees to prevent the undue and iniquitous through the issuance of WLOs (Watchlist Orders) and HDOs
proliferation of such plans. (Hold Departure Orders) (GENUINO v. DE LIMA [2018]).
Thus, in GSIS v. COA (2011), while GSIS has authority to create FISCAL AUTONOMY
a financial scheme is only limited to those availing of “early
retirement” due to reorganization who are not qualified for Fiscal Autonomy
optional or compulsory retirement. Thus, it was improper for the It contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and
GSIS Board to adopt “RFP” or the Retirement Financial Plan as utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their
it is not an early retirement scheme but it is a form of reward for needs require. It recognizes the power and authority
an employee’s loyalty and lengthy service in order to help him ➢ to levy, assess and collect fees,
enjoy the remaining years of his life – which is technically a ➢ fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest
supplementary retirement plan which is prohibited. rates authorized by law for compensation and pay
plans of the government and
§13. Lifting of pre-audit transactions, valid. – The lifting by ➢ allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided
COA of pre-audit of transaction of national government, GOCCs by law or prescribed by them in course of the discharge
and LGUs is valid. There is nothing in the Constitution that of their functions (CHREA v. CHR, 444 SCRA 300).
requires COA to conduct pre-audit of all government
transactions for all government agencies (DE LA LLANA v. COA). Entities with Fiscal Autonomy
The Constitution grants the enjoyment of fiscal autonomy only
§14. Mere absence of IRR does not invalidate law. – To rule to the following:
that the absence of implementing rules can render ineffective an 1. Judiciary
act of Congress, such as the Revised Securities Act, would 2. Constitutional Commissions (but not CHR)
empower the administrative bodies to defeat the legislative will 3. Ombudsman
by delaying the implementing rules. To assert that a law is less
than a law, because it is made to depend on a future event or §1. It is a grant by the constitution not a tag obtainable by
act, is to rob the Legislature of the power to act wisely for the membership. – CHR cannot lawfully implement an upgrading
public welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state of and reclassification of positions without DBM authority. The
affairs not yet developed, or to things future and impossible to creation of FMO and PAO in the CHR is not authorized by any
fully know. The mere absence of implementing rules cannot law. CHR is not among the class of Constitutional Commissions.
effectively invalidate provisions of law, where a reasonable Neither does the fact that the CHR was admitted as a member
construction that will support the law may be given (SEC v. by the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) ipso facto
INTERPORT RESOURCES [2008]). clothed it fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy is a constitutional
grant, not a tag obtainable by membership (CHREA v. CHR, 444
§15. Unlike in Ople, EO 420 directing all government SCRA 300).
agencies adopt unified multi-purpose ID is valid. – This
unified ID system in government agencies is intended to reduce Later on, in CHREA v. CHR, 496 SCRA 227, CHR has the privilege
cost and ensure greater convenience. It can be achieved by of having its approved annual appropriations released therein
(1) Heads of government entities can enter into MOA to automatically and regularly, but not fiscal autonomy in its
adopt uniform ID format which is purely administrative; extensive sense like using their appropriations and their savings
(2) President, pursuant to the power of control, can direct for certain official purposes.
through executive or administrative order, government
entities to adopt a uniform ID format. §2. Funds of those who enjoy fiscal autonomy cannot be
conditioned on “no report, no release” DBM policy. – By
§16. Review centers not under CHED jurisdiction. – EO 566 parity of construction, "automatic release" of approved annual
authorizing CHED to supervise the operation of all review appropriations to petitioner, a constitutional commission which
centers is invalid and a usurpation of legislative function. The is vested with fiscal autonomy, should thus be construed to
mandate of CHED under RA 7722 extends only to public/private mean that no condition to fund releases to it may be imposed.
institutions of higher learning and degree-granting programs in Even granting that there is revenue shortfall, these agencies
post-secondary educational institutions, but not over review should be given priority. The except is where “total revenue is
centers as it is not an institution of higher learning (REVIEW so low they are not sufficient to cover the total appropriations for
CENTER ASSOCIATION v. ERMITA, 583 SCRA 428). all entities vested with fiscal autonomy.” (CSC v. DBM [2000]).
Independence Enjoyed Administrative Subpoena Judicial Subpoena

The independence enjoyed by the Office of the Ombudsman It is not to prove a pending It is intended to prove a
and by the Constitutional Commissions shares certain charge but to discover or charge that is already
characteristics – they do not owe their existence to any act of gather evidence and on the pending in court.
Congress, but are created by the Constitution itself; additionally, basis of which, a charge
they all enjoy fiscal autonomy. In general terms, the framers of may be filed if the evidence
the Constitution intended that these "independent" bodies be discovered so justifies.
insulated from political pressure to the extent that the absence
of "independence" would result in the impairment of their core POWER TO PUNISH CONTEMPT
functions (GONZALES v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT [2014]).
No Inherent Power to Punish Contempt
§3. DBM can only call attention of SC but not downgrade The power to punish contempt is not an inherent to the
positions. – DBM has no authority to downgrade SC positions administrative agencies. Thus, the power to punish contempt
or salary grades as it is an encroachment of Supreme Court’s should be clearly determined. In the absence of provision of law,
fiscal autonomy. DBM’s power is limited only to call the SC’s administrative bodies do not possess the inherent power of
attention and the latter may amend or modify the same ( RE: contempt.
CLARIFYING … PHILJA, 481 SCRA 1).
Thus, the power to punish contempt should be clearly defined
§4. GSIS Law cannot provide for exemption from legal fees. and granted by law and its penalty determined. In the absence
– Section 39 of GSIS law (RA 8291), exempting it form all taxes, of provision of law, administrative bodies do not possess
assessments, fees, charges or duties of all kinds, cannot inherent power of contempt.
operate to exempt GSIS from payment of legal fees. Supreme
Court under the Constitution has sole authority to promulgate Q. What if the administrative agency has no statutory grant of
rules as to pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. Any power of contempt?
exemption from payment of legal fees granted by Congress and
LGUs would necessarily reduce its judicial funds impairing the >EO 292 states that unless otherwise provided by law, the
Supreme Court’s guaranteed fiscal autonomy and erodes its agency may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the RTC
independence (GSIS PETITION FOR EXEMPTION [2010]). within whose jurisdiction the contested case being heard falls.
The Court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt.
§5. Supreme Court can decide on what computation to use.
– COA found “underpayment” when retired SC justices bought Limitation
the cars they currently use as the SC used CFAG computation The power to punish contempt is limited to making effective the
rather than COA computation. Held: Under the guarantees of power to elicit testimony and it cannot be exercised in
fiscal autonomy and independence, the Supreme Court decide furtherance of administrative functions; this limitation derives
the terms, conditions and restrictions on grant of privileges and from its nature being inherently judicial and the need to preserve
benefits to court officials/personnel. Use of formula in CFAG is order in judicial proceedings.
part of SC exercise of discretionary authority to determine the
manner the retirement privileges/benefits can be availed of (IN §1. Ombudsman’s power to punish to contempt. – RA 6770
RE: COA COMPUTATION [2012]). gives the Office of the Ombudsman the power to punish for
contempt in accordance with Rules of Court and under the same
POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENA procedure and the same penalties provided therein. Petitioner’s
argument that they cannot be held liable for contempt because
No Inherent Power to Subpoena their refusal arose out of an administrative – rather than judicial
Administrative agencies have no inherent power to require the – proceeding before the OMB is without merit. Whether the
attendance of witnesses. However, the power to issue subpoena petitioners’ refusal to follow the OMB orders constitutes defiance
ad testificandum or duces tecum may be given to them by law; is for respondent to determine after appropriate hearing
and the disobedience to the subpoena or refusal to be sworn in (LASTIMOSA v. VASQUEZ [1995]).
to answer questions, or to comply with agency orders or
decisions may be punished as contempt. If a person refuses to respond to the OMB or his Deputy’s
subpoena, or refuses to be examined, or engages in obstructive
Basis of the Power to Issue Subpoena conduct, the OMB or his deputy shall issue an order directing
[1] Section 13, Chapter 3, Book VII of EO 292: “In any contested the person to appear before him to show cause why he should
case, the agency shall have the power to require the attendance not be punished for contempt. The contempt proceedings shall
of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and be conducted pursuant to the provision of the Rules of Court
other pertinent data, upon request of any party before or during (Section 32[3], RA 6770). Delay or refusal to comply with OMB
the hearing upon showing of general relevance. referral or directive is ground for administrative disciplinary
action (Section 26[4], RA 6770).
[2] Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of EO 292: “When authority to
take testimony or receive evidence is conferred upon any VALIDITY OF IMPLEMENTING RULES OF
administrative officer or any non-judicial person, committee, or INTERPRETATIVE POLICIES
other body, such authority shall include the power to administer
oaths, summon witnesses, and require the production of Authority to Interpret Laws to Execute
documents by a subpoena duces tecum.” Administrative bodies, corollary to their obligation to enforce the
law must perforce have the competence to interpret, at first
When Enforceable instance, the meaning of the laws that they are to execute.
It may be enforced if the inquiry is within the authority of the Absent such authority, [they] will be rendered ineffective in
agency, the demand is not to indefinite and the information is pursuing their responsibilities assigned to them by law but it is
reasonably relevant (EVANGELISTA v. JARENCIO, 68 SCRA 99). not necessarily binding but they carry persuasive weight
(GONZALES v. LAND BANK, 183 SCRA 520).
To reiterate, when an administrative agency renders opinion or §3. Belated publication does not cure failure to publish. –
issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets an existing law Publication is a condition precedent to effectivity of a law. DBM
and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is circular was not published; its reissuance will NOT cure the
courts that finally determine what the law means (MELENDRES defect. DBM Circular is of no force and effect due to absence of
v. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 262). publication thereof in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation. The fact that it was reissued and then was
General policy: It is to sustain the decision of administrative submitted for publication in the OG does not cure the defect nor
bodies on basis of separation of powers and their presumed retroact to the time items were disallowed in the audit ( PHIL.
knowledgeability and expertise. INTERNATIONAL TRADING v. COA, 309 SCRA 177).
Revocation and Repeal of Previous Officer’s Rulings §4. Apart from publication it must also be registered and
An administrative officer, such as the BIR Commissioner, may filed with the UP Law Center. – POEA Circular not filed with
revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of his the [UP Law Center] cannot be basis for imposition of the
predecessors in office – the construction of a statute by those administrative sanctions and may not be enforced; a requisite
administering it is not binding on their successors if, thereafter, under Sections 3 and 4 of EO 292. Thus, it is ineffective and may
the latter becomes satisfied that a different construction should not be enforced (PHILSA v. LABOR SECRETARY, 356 SCRA 174).
be given (PNOC v. CA, 457 SCRA 32). Rules imposing a penalty as authorized by the law itself must
still be filed and registered with the UP Law Center.
Requisites for Validity of Administrative Rules and
Regulations: §5. Internal intergovernmental circular outline need not be
(1) Must have been issued under authority of laws; published. – Only circulars and regulations which prescribe a
(2) Must be within the scope and purview of the law; penalty for its violation should be published before becoming
(3) Must be reasonable; effective, this, on the general principle and theory that before the
(4) Must be published (TANADA v. TUVERA). public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provision, a
law, regulation or circular must first be published and the people
Publication Requirement officially and specifically informed of said contents and its
penalties: said precedent, to date, has not yet been modified or
What Need to Be Published? reversed. OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 DOES NOT
Administrative rules and regulations must be published in the contain any penal provision or prescribe a mandatory act or
Official Gazette if their purpose is to enforce or implement prohibit any, under pain or penalty (HONASAN v. DOJ PANEL).
existing laws pursuant to valid delegation of legislative power
“except such as have no general applicability.” (YAOKASIN v. What Need Not be Published
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, 180 SCRA 592). (1) Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in
nature, i.e. regulating only the personnel of the
Meaning, when the issuance is of general applicability to the administrative agency and not the public, need not be
public, publication is necessary as requirement of due process. published;
With this, it is also important to remember that NOT ALL the (2) Letters of instruction, issued by administrative
administrative issuances need be published. superiors concerning rules to be followed by the
subordinates
Rationale: There must be in some way, that the general public
be informed of the law or rule to be followed, otherwise one An example is in GSIS v. VELASCO (2011), where Resolution No.
cannot invoke the presumption “ignorance of the law excuses no 372 on new GSIS salary structure; Resolution No. 306 as to the
one” if in the first place, one does not know what the law was. authority to pay 2002 Christmas package; and Resolution 197
Under the Civil Code, as amended: “Laws shall take effect after as to merit selection and promotion plan are internal rules that
fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in regulate GSIS personnel, hence no need for publication or filing
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in of these resolutions with the UP Law Center.
the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.”
§6. Filing with UP Law Center alone, without publication
Jurisprudence does not make the rules effective. – In this case, the 1978
NTC Rules shall apply and not the 1993 NTC Rules, even
§1. Failure to comply with the publication requirement, though the latter has been filed and registered with the UP Law
when necessary, cannot bind persons. – SEC violated due Center. It should have been published in the OG or newspaper
process when it denied the public prior knowledge of SEC 1990 of general circulation before it can take effect. Publication is a
Circular on removing filing fee ceilings provided for in SEC 1986 condition sine qua non before rule takes effect. The filing of the
Circular. The 1990 SEC Circular was not yet effective during the 1993 NTC RR with UP Law Center is not the operative act that
time PICOP filed its request in 2002 to extend its corporate gives the RR force and effect. The National Administrative
existence as the SEC filed the said circular with the UP Law Register is merely a bulletin of codified rules and is furnished
Center only in 2004. The OP and CA were correct in declaring only to certain agencies (REPUBLIC v. EXPRESS TELECOM).
that the applicable filing fee payable by PICOP is P100K as
computed under the 1986 Circular instead of P12M SEC §7. Rule imposing and fixing filing fee must be published. –
assessment under the 1990 Circular (SEC v. PICOP). SEC MC No. 1 imposing that the filing shall be 1/10 of 1% of the
authorized capital plus 20% thereof for amendments extending
§2. Article 2 applies to Executive Orders. – The President corporate existence is not a mere interpretation or an internal
issued EO on December 2, 1986. It was published in the Official rule. The MC is invalid as it was not published in the Official
Gazette on December 22, 1986. Thus, E. O. No. 79 is effective Gazette or newspaper, nor filed with Office of National
fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette, Administrative Register of UP Law Center. It needs to be
or on January 07, 1987. At that time, late General Asuncion was published as it implements mandate of RA 3531 and it affects
a reserve officer who had rendered a total of ten (10) years of the public at large (SEC v. GMA NETWORK, 575 SCRA 113).
continuous active duty service commission in the AFP.
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS §7. Disciplinary decisions by the Sanggunian must be

signed by the majority. – The decision prepared by the SB
Requirements of Administrative Due Process Member Sotto cannot be regarded as the decision of the
(1) Impartial tribunal; Sanggunian for the lack of signatures of the requisite majority.
(2) Due notice, hearing and opportunity to be heard; Until they have signed the opinion and the decision has been
(3) Procedure consistent with essentials of fair trial; promulgated, [they] are free to change their votes (MALINAO v.
(4) It should be conducted to give opportunity for court to REYES, 255 SCRA 616).
determine whether applicable rule of law and
procedure were observed. DUE PROCESS IN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
§1. Inclusion of representative of a teacher’s organization
in the committees was indispensable to ensure impartial Administrative Due Process
tribunal. – The rendering of disciplinary sanction against the (1) Right to actual or constructive notice to the institution
striking teachers was in violation of due process since when the of proceedings;
committee who conducted the investigation did not include as (2) Real opportunity to be heard personally or with counsel
member a representative of their organization as required by the and to present evidence;
Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. The inclusion of such (3) Impartial tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction;
representative of a teacher’s organization in the committees was (4) Finding by said tribunal which is supported by
indispensable to ensure an impartial tribunal. substantial evidence submitted during the hearing or
contained in the record or made known to the parties
§2. Jurisdiction may no longer be impugned due to affected.
estoppel. –CSC has no original jurisdiction over administrative
case against a public school teacher since it should have been §1. Consequence of non-observance, decision is void. – A
with the Investigating Committee under Section 9 of RA 4670. decision rendered in disregard of fundamental right to due
Still, Emin was barred by estoppel as he was sufficiently process is void for lack of jurisdiction. In the procedure adopted
afforded due process by CSC. He answered the charges and by the petitioner, respondents were preventively suspended in
participated in the hearings. He is barred under principle of the same formal charges issued by the former without the latter
estoppel by laches to impugn CSC jurisdiction (EMIN v. DE LEON, knowing that there were pending administrative cases against
378 SCRA 143). them. It is true that prior notice and hearing are not required in
the issuance of a preventive suspension order. However,
Similarly, in ALCALA v. VILLAR (2003), the School Principal Villar considering that respondents were preventively suspended in
is barred under principle of estoppel by laches from assailing the the same formal charges that we now declare null and void, then
jurisdiction of OMB since his right to procedural due process was their preventive suspension is likewise null and void (GARCIA v.
properly observed. Not only did he files his MR from decision MOLINA, 627 SCRA 541). The preliminary investigation must be
dismissing him from dishonesty, he also participated in the done prior to the issuance of formal charge. The filing of formal
hearings conducted by OMB-VIS and was given the opportunity charges without preliminary investigation or giving them the
to cross-examine the witnesses against him. opportunity to comment violated their right to due process.
§3. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and is not lost by mere §2. Valid as long as based on substantial findings. – In this
agreement of the parties. – Once it is acquired, the tribunal case, even if the CSC acted as the investigator, complainant,
continues to have authority and it should continue with the prosecutor and the judge, all the same time against petitioners,
proceedings until the case is terminated despite acquiescence it does not mean that they were denied due process of law. As
of such transfer by the OMB and DepED. Thus, when complaint an administrative body, its decision was based on substantial
was already filed in the DepED investigating committee, it findings. Factual findings of administrative bodies, considered
cannot be withdrawn from same and transfer it to OMB by mere as experts in their filed are binding on the Supreme Court (CRUZ
agreement of parties (OMB v. ESTANDARTE, 521 SCRA 155). v. CSC, 370 SCRA 650). This is also the same even when the
GSIS acts as complainant, prosecutor and judge (GARCIA v.
§4. OMB may refer certain complaints to proper disciplinary MOLINA, 627 SCRA 540).
authority. – RA 6670 recognizes the existence of some proper
disciplinary authorities such as DepED Investigating Committee In the case of SAUNAR v. ERMITA (2017), in deciding
under RA 4670. OMB may refer certain complaints to the proper administrative cases, not only must there be some evidence to
disciplinary authority for institution of administrative proceeding support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be
against erring public officers. OMB and Investigating Committee "substantial." "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla
have concurrent jurisdiction over a public school teacher (OMB It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
v. MEDRANO, 596 SCRA 749). accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
§5. Concurrent jurisdiction over public school teachers. – A §3. Distinction between Section 12 and Section 47, EO 292
principal, covered by the definition “public school teacher” is
under the concurrent administrative disciplinary authority of Section 12 Section 47
OMB and the Investigation Committee, and OMB may refer such Refers to the authority to It refers to the ordinary
to the latter as what is held in Medrano (OMB v. DELIJERO). institute directly and motu disciplinary proceedings
proprio administrative cases intended to discipline a bona
§6. RA 4670 does not vest exclusive jurisdiction. – The of dishonesty and fide member of the system.
Magna Carta of Public School Teachers merely provides for a falsification, intended to This is against a bona fide
procedure for handling investigations involving public school administer the civil service member (not one who
teachers and it does not confer exclusive jurisdiction. Under system and protect its falsified qualifications) for
Section 9, the Investigating Committee has authority but not integrity by removing from acts or missions that
exclusive as it is concurrent with the Ombudsman (OMB v. list of eligibles those who constitute violation of law
MASING, 542 SCRA 253). falsified their qualifications. and rules of the service.
In CSC v. ALBAO (472 SCRA 548), EA Albao stated in his Personal §9. Procedural vs. Substantive Due Process –
Data Sheet that he passed the Electrical Engineer Exam. It was
shown however, that he is not a bona fide member since he was Procedural Due Process Substantive Due Process
found to have falsified his qualifications. Mode of procedure by which Intrinsic validity of the law
government agencies must interfering with life, liberty,
§4. Reviewing Officer cannot review his own decision. – In follow in the enforcement and property
ZAMBALES MINING v. CA (94 SCRA 621), in order that the review and application of laws
of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a Essentially directed at Basically, directed at those
farce, the reviewing officer must be other than the subordinate officers who adjudicate who enact the laws
office whose decision is under review, otherwise there can be
no different view or there would be no real review of the case. Refers to the guarantees of It determines whether or not
He would not admit he was mistaken in his first view of the case. fairness in the process of the law itself is fair,
determining whether a right, reasonable and just
Similarly, in SINGSON v. NLRC (274 SCRA 358), petitioner was liberty or freedom is to be
denied due process when Commissioner Aquino participated as impaired or to be taken
presiding commissioner of the Second Division of NLRC in away
reviewing the appeal which was his own decision as the former
Labor Arbiter. Litigants are entitled to review of commissioners §10. Designation of offense charged in administrative case
who are impartial. Aquino should have inhibited himself. is not controlling. – Pia’s argument that she was not properly
charged with the offense xxx does not warrant her exoneration.
§5. Special prosecutor cannot participate in reinvestigation The designation of the offense or offenses with which a person
of which preliminary investigation he was a part of. – In this is charged in an administrative case is not controlling, and one
case, Desierto should have recused himself, having participated may be found guilty of another offense where the substance of
in the case as the special prosecutor in the initial preliminary the allegations and evidence presented sufficiently proves one’s
investigation of the instant case and having recommended the guilt. It is sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the
filing of an appropriate information, he should have delegated charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the
the review to his deputies (TEJANO v. DESIERTO, 462 SCRA 568). acts complained of, not designation of the offense. Considering
then that the acts alleged and proved to have been committed
§6. Revival of archived case without notice to oppositor, not by Pia amounts to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
denial of due process. – It cannot be said that Extelcom’s right Service, and that she has been afforded a full opportunity to
to procedural due process was prejudiced. It will still have the present her side and refute the act imputed against her, the
opportunity to be heard during full-blown adversarial hearings Court finds no cogent reason to nullify the ruling made by the
that will follow. In fact, the records show that the NTC has then CA on Pia’s guilt (PIA v. GERVACIO, GR 172334 [2013]).
scheduled hearings which they can register their opposition
(REPUBLIC v. EXPRESS TELECOM, 373 SCRA 319). As stated in AVENIDO v. CSC (553 SCRA 711), the charge against
the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted
§7. Administrative proceedings are not deemed to be with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It
exempt from fundamental procedural principles. – A basic is sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the charge
requirement of due process is that: against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the acts
(a) A person must be duly informed of the charges against complained of, not the designation of the offense.
and that;
(b) A person cannot be convicted of a crime with which he §11. Tenurial protection is a guaranty of both procedural
was he was not charged. and substantive due process. – In this regard, petitioners
actively participated in the proceedings before PAGC where
The CSC cannot charge him with grave misconduct when the they were afforded the opportunity to explain their actions
act only involves simple misconduct (CSC v. LUCAS). through their memoranda. The essence of due process is the
right to be heard and this evidently was afforded to them. Thus,
§8. “Opportunity to be heard” – The essence of due process petitioners’ assertion that their dismissal was unattended by the
is the opportunity to be heard or seek a reconsideration of the requisite due process cannot be sustained. In sum, the removal
ruling that was complained of. A formal trial type hearing is not from office of petitioners was valid. PEA dismissed them for
always necessary to satisfy the requirement of “hearing.” cause and in accordance with the requisites of due process
(LACSON v. PAGC [2011]). Their failure to appeal to the proper
In DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF LTO v. GUTIERREZ (2017), the Court forum (which should have been to the CSC not CA), rendered
emphasized, that the essence of procedural due process is the PEA decision final and executory.
embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real
opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, as in the §12. Access to Daily Time Records even without consent. –
case at bar, procedural due process simply means the Maceda argues that her consent was necessary for the release
opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a of copies of the documents attached to the letter-complaint, but
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. 'To be she did not specifically cite the relevant court and school rules
heard' does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may to this effect. In so far as Maceda’s DTRs are concerned, this
also be heard thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, formed part of her employee records, which the OCA and the
either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is Court can freely access even without her consent. Moreover,
no denial of procedural due process. proceedings in administrative investigation are not strictly
governed by the technical rules of evidence. They are summary
In this case, records show that the Formal Charge against in nature. Maceda has knowingly and voluntarily participated in
Gutierrez was issued following the LTO's issuance of a Show the administrative investigation conducted by Judge Falcotelo,
Cause Memorandum. The latter then duly complied therewith by by the OCA, and finally, by the Supreme Court. (ANONYMOUS
submitting her letter-reply pursuant thereto. Evidently, Gutierrez COMPLAINT AGAINST MACEDA [2014]).
was accorded her right to procedural due process.
§13. No denial of due process upon being able to file MR. – §20. Due process in JBC proceedings. – Is due process
Right to due process of a respondent in an administrative case demandable as a matter of right in JBC proceedings? While JBC
was not violated if she was able to file motion for reconsideration proceedings are sui generis, right to be heard is availing. Where
to refute the evidence against her. There is no denial of due the objection to an applicant’s integrity is raised, observance of
process when on filing an MR, she was given opportunity to be due process supports and enriches JBC’s discretion in
heard but she refused to file pleading (RUVIVAR v. OMB). nomination process and it is presented with clear understanding
of the circumstances (JARDELEZA v. SERENO [2014]).
§14. Unverified complaint only commences fact-finding
investigation. – It is the formal charge and order of preventive Acquisition and Loss of Jurisdiction
suspension that constituted the complaint. Significantly, the
petitioner cannot rightfully claim that he was denied procedural §21. Acquisition of jurisdiction not easily lost. – Jurisdiction
due process. What is repugnant to due process is the denial of that was acquired at the time of filing is not lost by cessation in
the opportunity to be heard. The petitioner was undoubtedly office of respondent during pendency of his administrative case.
afforded the opportunity to present his side as he was directed The body retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce him innocent
to file his written answer to the formal charge against him. He of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule
opted not to do so. He cannot now feign denial of due process would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and
GAIORAN v. ALCALA, 444 SCRA 420). dangerous implications (PEREZ v. ABIERA, 62 SCRA 302).
§15. OSG is entitled to notice even if it deputizes a special §22. Rules in case of death. – General Rule: Death does not
attorney. – The OSG continues to be the principal counsel for preclude finding of administrative liability.
the National Power Corporation, and as such, the Solicitor
General is the party entitled to be furnished copies of orders, Exceptions:
notices and decisions. The deputized special attorney has no (1) When respondent in administrative case has not been
legal authority to decide whether or not an appeal should be heard and continuation of proceedings would deny him
made. Service of summons or order on OSG is indispensable or his right to due process;
ingredient of due process (NPC v. NLRC, 272 SCRA 707). (2) Where exceptional circumstances exist in the case
leading to equitable and humanitarian reasons;
§16. Notice to the counsel is notice to the client. – Where a (3) When the kind of penalty imposed would render the
party appears by counsel in an action in court or administrative proceedings useless.
body, all notices required to be given must be served to the
counsel and not to the client (GERARD v. NLRC [1990]). Cardinal Primary Rights in Administrative Proceedings
1. Right to a hearing;
And notice to any one of the several counsels on record is notice 2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
to all despite that the other counsel on record has not received 3. Decision must have something to support itself;
a copy of the decision and such starts the time running for 4. Decision is based on substantial evidence;
appeal (PPA v. SARGASSO, 435 SCRA 512). 5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented
at hearing or at least contained in the record and
§17. Right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due disclosed to the parties affected;
process. – The right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of 6. Board or judge must act on its own independent
due process; it is merely a statutory privilege exercisable only in consideration of law and facts of controversy and not
the manner and in accordance with law (ALBA v. NITORREDA). simply accept views of subordinate;
7. Decision is rendered such that the parties know
§18. Right to counsel is waivable. – Assistance of counsel is various issues and reasons for decision.
not an absolute requirement in administrative inquiry. Here,
Ampong waived her right to assistance of counsel and freely §1. Decision must contain factual findings. – The exercise of
acknowledged her wrongdoing. A party in an administrative disciplining authority’s prerogative requires prior independent
inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel and no duty rests consideration of law and facts and must not simply rely on the
on such body to furnish the person investigated without counsel disposition portion of PCAGC resolution and even misquoting it.
(AMPONG v. CSC, 563 SCRA 294). Her two page Order dismissing the respondents simply and
blindingly relied on the dispositive portion, her decision should
In DAR RD LUMIQUED v. EXEVEA (282 SCRA 125), respondent has have contained a factual finding and legal assessment of the
the option of engaging the services of counsel or not. Right to controversy to enable parties to know the basis for dismissal
counsel is not imperative because administrative inquiry is (DOH v. CAMPOSANO, 457 SCRA 440).
conducted merely to determine whether the facts merit the
disciplinary measures against erring public officers, with the §2. Requisite voting must be followed, otherwise void. –
purpose of maintaining the dignity of the government service. Decision prepared by a SP Member is not the “Decision” of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan for lack of signatures of requisite
§19. Negligence of counsel binds the client; exceptions. – majority. The voting following deliberation of SP members did
not necessarily constitute their Decision (MALINAO v. REYES).
General Rule: Negligence of the counsel binds the client. In
MAQUILAN v. MAQUILAN (2007), Virgilio cannot claim that he was Instances of Administrative Determination
not intelligently or judiciously informed of the consequential Where Notice and Hearing are Not Necessary
effects of the compromise agreement – negligence of the 1. Summary abatement of nuisance per se
counsel binds the client. 2. Cancellation of passport by DFA
3. Summary proceedings of distraint and levy of property
Exception: The only exception is when negligence of the counsel of delinquent taxpayer
is gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of 4. Preventive suspension
his date in court (RAZON v. PEOPLE, 525 SCRA 284). 5. Grant of provisional authority for increased rates, or to
engage in particular line of business.
There is nothing irregular that the TRB Resolution authorizing §3. Action to recover confiscated forestry products must be
provisional toll rate adjustment at Metro Manila Skyway effective first with DENR. – Action to recover forestry products under the
January 01, 2002 was signed by TRB Executive Director and DENR custody shall be directed to that agency and not the
four directors, none of whom personally attended the hearing courts through a complaint for replevin and damages. Action of
(PADUA v. RANADA, 390 SCRA 679). the BFP Director is subject to review by the DENR Secretary.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION Q. Are decision of the department secretaries appealable to the
President? It depends, if there is a provision allowing the same
Applicability such as PD 705. If none, then doctrine of qualified political
The right against self-incrimination is available in all kinds of agency applies.
proceedings, whether civil, criminal or administrative (GALMAN
v. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 294). §4. Distinctions. –
But such right is available only to natural persons and not to a Doctrine of Primary Doctrine of Exhaustion of
judicial person. The reason for this exclusion of juridical persons Jurisdiction Administrative Remedies
from self-incriminatory rule is administrative bodies tasked by Both deal with the proper relationships
legislature to see to the compliance of law and public policy between courts and administrative bodies.
(VALMONTE v. BELMONTE, 170 SCRA 256). Primary jurisdiction applies Exhaustion applies where
where the case is within the the claim is originally
§1. Must be claimed at the appropriate time. – The right concurrent jurisdiction of the cognizable in the first
against self-incrimination is not self-executory or automatically court and administrative instance by the
operational, it must be claimed at the appropriate time, or else it agency but requires the administrative body alone.
may be deemed waived. Nacu did not invoke her right against determination of some
self-incrimination at the time she was asked to provide samples technical or factual matter.
of her signature. She is therefore deemed to have waived such
right against self-incrimination (NACU v. CSC, 635 SCRA 766). §5. Increase in water rates – LWD → LWUA → NWRB → OP.
This is the exhaustion of administrative remedies that must be
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF observed in case of review of increase of water rates (MERIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES WATER DISTRICT v. BACARRA, 567 SCRA 204).
Rule Involved §6. Injunction on matters involving labor issues should be

Before a party can be allowed to seek judicial intervention, he is with the NLRC. – When a third party claim before the court was
to exhaust all means of administrative redress available under in essence, an action questioning the validity of levy in the labor
the law. The court for reasons of law, comity and convenience case against Ongpin, it was properly an incident of the labor
will not entertain a case unless all available remedies have been case and the RTC cannot enjoin the NLRC (DELTAVENTURES v.
exhausted in order to give the administrative agency concerned CABATO, 357 SCRA 522).
the chance to act and correct the errors, if any, that it might have
committed in the administrative forum and prevent unnecessary §7. Special Prosecutor – The office of the Special Prosecutor
and premature resort to courts (PAAT v. CA [1997]). is merely a component of the Ombudsman and may only act
under the supervision and control and upon authority of the
Consequence of Non-Compliance Ombudsman (OMB v. VALERA, 471 SCRA 717).
A direct action in court without prior exhaustion of administrative
remedies, when required, is premature, warranting its dismissal §8. Power of control and supervision of prosecutors. – In
on a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause of action. The the case of RSP AURILLO v. RABI (392 SCRA 604), the Court ruled
failure to observe the doctrine does not affect the jurisdiction of that mistakes, abuses or negligence by administrative agency in
the court. the initial steps should be corrected by higher administrative
authorities, and not directly by the courts. In case of those
Reasons for the Doctrine prosecutors, the following are the officers:
(1) The need to allow the administrative tribunal to correct
whatever error it committed in process of adjudication; DOJ Secretary Regional State Prosecutor
(2) On the basis of separation of powers, because doctrine Has both power of control Only has the power of
of primary jurisdiction, the tribunal clothed with the and supervision as the SOJ administrative supervision
expertise on determination of a field within its expertise; may affirm, nullify, reverse, and cannot conduct
(3) The need to de-clog the court dockets. modify their ruling. preliminary investigation.
§1. Not applicable to quasi-legislative functions. – Doctrine §9. CARP implementation is under exclusive jurisdiction of
is applicable only to acts in the performance of a quasi-judicial, the DAR – Protests regarding CARP implementation are under
not rule-making functions. Where what is assailed is the validity the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. The petition for
of IRR issued by the National Government Center pursuant to certiorari by Polo Coconut before the Court of Appeals asserting
its quasi-legislative power under RA 9207, on the ground that it that the PARO gravely abuse his discretion in placing the Polo
is not germane to the purpose of the law, the regular court has estate under the CARP will not prosper until all remedies under
jurisdiction to pass upon the same (HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS DARAB Rules have been exhausted (DAR v. PCPI, 564 SCRA 80).
v. DEFENSOR, 492 SCRA 582).
§10. Rule as to reassignment of NIA officer. – Exhaustion of
§2. MR, if applicable, should first be resorted to. – A motion administrative remedies involving reassignment order of the
for reconsideration must first be filed under NLRC Rules of Regional Manager Officer of the NIA should have been an
Procedure before Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule appeal to the NIA Administrator, and if necessary, to the CSC
65 may be availed of (SUNSHINE v. NLRC, 254 SCRA 51). [MR → NIA Administrator → CSC] (CORSIGA v. DEFENSOR).
§11. “Immediately executory” does not mean it can no Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
longer be subject of an MR – Respondent violated to rule on Administrative Remedies
exhaustion when it went directly to the Court of Appeals on a
petition for certiorari and prohibition from the NTC Order without §1. Where the question is purely a legal one. – There is a
first filing an MR within 15 days. That the NTC Order became question of law when doubt or differences arises as to what the
final and executory does not mean foreclosure of remedy of filing law is on a certain matter of facts. Question of facts when doubt
of MR (REPUBLIC v. EXTELCOM, 373 SCRA 321). arise as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.
§12. Filing of second MR will not suspend the running of a. Whether the transfer of Bacal to the RD PAO, which was
period. – A petition for review under Rule 43 (appeal) shall be made without her consent, amounts to removal without cause is
taken within 15 days from the date of denial of the first and only a legal issue (DEMAISIP v. BACAL).
MR allowed. The filing of the second MR by SEC before the OP
did not suspend the running of the period to file a petition for b. Whether or not decision of SP in disciplinary cases is then
review before the CA, which expired 15 days after petition SEC appealable to the OP as well as propriety of taking an oath of
received the OP resolution denying the first MR and upholding office anew by Barangay Captain Laxina, are question of law
the position of PICOP. The second MR does not have any legal (MENDOZA v. LAXINA, 406 SCRA 156).
effect (SEC v. PICOP, 566 SCRA 151).
c. Whether the memorandum of the ARMM government ordering
§13. Appeals over the decisions of RD of Labor involving reinstatement of petitioner already declared AWOL and dropped
money claims on visitorial powers. – If, in the exercise of from the rolls was issued in excess of jurisdiction is a legal
visitorial and enforcement powers, the RD of Labor denies a question (ARIMAO v. TAHER, 498 SCRA 75).
motion to quash the writ of execution in relation to the money
claims issued thereon the proper appeal should be with the d. Whether or not the PNP Chief had jurisdiction to take
Secretary of Labor not with the Court of Appeals (LAGUNA CATV cognizance of the complaint filed by a private citizen against him
v. MRAAN, 392 SCRA 226). is a legal question (LASTIMOSO v. ASAYO [2007]).
§14. Barangay conciliation proceedings. – Under Section 408 e. Whether or not petitioner’s dismissal form service is the
of the LGC, parties actually residing in the same city or proper penalty for the first offense of disgraceful and immoral
municipality are bound to submit their disputes to the Lupon ng conduct is a question of law (CASTRO v. GLORIA, 363 SCRA 423).
Tagapamayapa for conciliation/amicable settlement, unless
otherwise provided therein. If the complainant fails to comply §2. Where doctrine of qualified political agency applies. –
with this requirement, such complaint filed with the court may be Where respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as
dismissed for failure to exhaustion administrative remedies alter ego of the President, bear implied or assume approval of
(BERBA v. PABLO, 474 SCRA 686)). the latter (QUISUMBING v. GUMBAN, 193 SCRA 523).
§15. Remedy from of Order of LLDA – LLDA Order imposing §3. When it calls application of the Civil Code. – Where a
penalty for pollutive wastewater discharge → MR to the DENR student is not asking for reversal or the policies of PCST nor
Secretary → Rule 65 to the CA (ALEXANRDA v. LLDA). But the demanding that she be allowed to take the final examinations
power to compromise claims shall only be with the COA or the that she was prevented from taking for her refusal to buy tickets
Congress under the law. sold by her teachers as a school fund-raising project but is
praying for damages. Regino could not have commenced her
§16. Remedy on disallowance made by COA. – The remedy case before the CHED because the CHED does not have the
shall be from COA Regional Office → COA Legal Office → COA power to award damages. Third, her action calls for the
Central through COA Chairman → Supreme Court. Note that application and interpretation of the Civil Code, a function falling
recourse to the Court of Appeals is not proper in this instance within the courts’ jurisdiction (REGINO v. PCST, 443 SCRA 56).
(PROVINCE OF SIQUIJOR v. COA [2009]).
§4. Indigent litigant. – Taking into consideration that this
Distinction between Exhaustion and Due Process petition is filed by a non-lawyer, who claims that poverty denies
him the services of a lawyer, [the Court] also set aside the
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Due Process requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies and
Administrative Remedies resolved to go direct to the merits of the petition (SABELLO v.
The commonality they share is in the same opportunity that DECS [1989]).
underlies both. The opportunity for the ruling tribunal to
examine its findings and opportunity for the party to be heard. §5. Other Exceptions –
It is based on the Viewpoint of the litigating 1. There is nothing left to be done except to seek court
perspective of the tribunal party against whom a ruling action (STA. MARIA v. LOPEZ, 31 SCRA 639).
was made. 2. There is estoppel on the party invoking it
3. There is unreasonable delay of official action that will
Cases Where a Prior MR is Not Necessary irreparably prejudice the complainant;
(1) Order is a patent nullity, as where the tribunal has no 4. There is no plain, adequate and speedy remedy except
jurisdiction; court action;
(2) Urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and 5. Where there are circumstances indicating urgency of
any further delay would prejudice the interests of the judicial action;
government or of the petitioner; 6. The land in question is private;
(3) Deprivation of due process and there is urgency for 7. The amount is too small so as to make the rule then
relief; impractical;
(4) Issue is purely legal; 8. Where the controverted act is patently illegal or was
(5) Public interest is involved. performed without jurisdiction or that in excess of
jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED PRINCIPLE OF PRESIDENTIAL

POLITICAL AGENCY POWER OF CONTROL
Rule Involved Article VII, Section 17. - The President shall have control of
In the absence of a constitutional provision or a statute to the all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
contrary, official of a department secretary are deemed acts of ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
the President unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter.
Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a Power of Control
single executive – “all executive and administrative organization It is the power of the President to alter or middy of nullity or set
are adjuncts of the Executive Department and agents of the aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of
Chief Executive.” his duties and substitute the judgment of the former with that of
the latter (FORTICH v. CORONA, 298 SCRA 705).
Except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the
Constitution or law to act in person, or the exigencies of the §1. Includes the power to reorganize. – The reorganization of
situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious DOH under EO 102, not a usurpation of legislative power. EO
executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive 292 gives continuing authority to President to reorganize the
are performed by and through the executive departments, and administrative structure of the Office of the President to achieve
the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and economy and efficiency (TONDO MEDICAL v. CA, 527 SCRA 748).
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless
disapproved or reprobated by Chief Executive are presumptively The President has the power to reorganize the offices and the
the acts of the Chief Executive (FORTICH v. CORONA). agencies in the executive department in line with constitutionally
granted power of control and by virtue of a valid delegation of
§1. Executive Secretary. – The Office of Executive Secretary the legislative power to reorganize executive offices under
is an auxiliary unit which assists the President. The rule which existing statutes (BANDA v. ERMITA, 618 SCRA 448).
has thus gained recognition is that under our constitutional set-
up the Executive Secretary who acts - for and in behalf and by §2. Exercise of such power motu proprio. – The President
authority of the President has an undisputed jurisdiction to can exercise executive power motu proprio and can supplant
affirm, modify, or even reverse any order that the Secretary of decision or act of the subordinate with his own. When President
Agriculture and Natural Resources, including the Director of ordered the development of housing project (Smokey Mountain)
Lands, may issue. Where the Executive Secretary acts "by with reclamation work, making the DENR part of implementing
authority of the President," his decision is that of the President’s. committee, the required DENR authorization to reclaim said land
Such decision is to be given full faith and credit by our courts. is deemed satisfied. The ultimate power over alienable and
The assumed authority of the Executive Secretary is to be disposable public lands is reposed in the President and not the
accepted. For, only the President may rightfully say that the DENR Secretary. To still require DENR authorization on
Executive Secretary is not authorized to do so. Therefore, Smokey Mountain would be a derogation of President’s powers
unless the action taken is "disapproved or reprobated by the as head of Executive Branch (CHAVEZ v. NHA, 530 SCRA 241).
Chief Executive, and cannot be successfully assailed (LACSON-
MAGALLANES v. PAÑO [1967]). §3. Creation of PTC is not justified by the power of control
but by faithful execution clause. – The creation of the Phil.
§2. Does not apply to the Ombudsman. – Doctrine of qualified Truth Commission (PTC) is not justified by the President’s power
political agency does not apply to the Office of the Ombudsman, of control. The power of control (to alter, modify or nullify) is
since the latter is an apolitical agency, and is far different from different from power to create public offices – the former is
the bureaucracy to which said doctrine applies (PEREZ v. SB). inherent in the Executive, while the latter finds basis from either
a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to
§3. Special Order of DENR Secretary deemed that of the faithfully execute the laws. PTC’s creation is justified under Sec.
President. – The authority of the DENR technical team which 17, Art. Vll imposing on President the duty to ensure that laws
conducted the survey emanated from the Special Order issued are faithfully executed (BIRAOGO v. PTC [2010]).
by the DENR Secretary, the alter ego of the President. His acts
are presumed to be the acts of the President, unless repudiated §4. What is the extent of the power to reorganize by the
by the latter (CAMARINES NORTE v. QUEZON, 367 SCRA 91). President? – As general rule, the power to abolish a public
office is lodged with the legislature. This proceeds from the legal
§4. Non-delegable duties. – It is to be presumed that in naming precept that the power to create includes the power to destroy
the respective department heads as members of the board of except those offices created by the Constitution.
directors, the legislature chose these secretaries of the various
executive departments on basis of their personal qualifications The exception, as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the
and acumen which made them eligible to occupy their present executive department are concerned, the President’s power of
positions as department heads. Thus, department secretaries control may justify him to inactivate the functions of particular
cannot delegate their duties as members of the NPB, much less office, or certain laws may grant him the broad authority to carry
their power to vote and approve board resolutions, because it is out reorganization measures.
their personal judgment that must be exercised in the fulfillment
of such responsibility (NPC DRIVERS v. NPC, 503 SCRA 138). Under Section 31, Book III of EO 292, “The President in order to
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency shall continuing
§5. Power of reorganization may be delegated by President authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office
– DENR Secretary’s Order transferring the regional office from of the President and he may transfer functions of departments
Cotabato City to Koronadal City is deemed the President’s act. or agencies to the office of the President. EIIB is a bureau
As Executive head, the President has control and continuing attached to the Department of Finance and it falls under the
authority to reorganize any agency of the Executive branch. This Office of the President (BUKLOD v. ZAMORA). Reorganization
power may be delegated to his cabinet members under the said would involve the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices
doctrine (SECRETARY v. DENR EMPLOYEES, 409 SCRA 359). or abolition due to economy or redundancy.
§5. Continuing authority to reorganize. – The Office of the REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
President is the nerve center of the Executive Branch. To remain
effective and efficient, the Office of the President then must be As to Judicial Review of Factual Findings
capable of being shaped or reshaped by the President in the
manner he deems fit to carry out his directives and policies. After General Rule: Factual findings are not subject to judicial review
all, Office of the President is the command post of the President. and must be accorded not only utmost respect but finality as long
This is the rationale behind the President’s continuing authority as such decisions are confined to matters within their respective
to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the jurisdiction and are supported by substantial evidence.
President. Since EO 81 (transferring sports activities from DECS
to PSC) is based on the President’s continuing authority under Exceptions
EO 292, EO 81 is a valid exercise of the President’s delegated (1) Misappreciation of facts;
power to reorganize the Office of the President (DOMINGO v. (2) Not supported by evidence;
ZAMORA [2003]). (3) When so warranted, there may be judicial review;
(4) Findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or collusion;
§6. Limitation of power to reorganize. – (5) Procedure is irregular;
(6) Palpable or serious errors have been committed;
Within Office of Outside Office of the (7) Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or
President Proper President Proper capriciousness is manifest;
Can abolish, consolidate or Limited to transferring (8) Law explicitly authorizes review of factual matters.
merge units or by functions or agencies from (9) Mixed question of fact and law (assimilation of facts)
transferring functions from the OP to the Departments (10) Conflicting factual findings
one unit to another. or Agencies, vice versa.
Results in cessation of Does not result in cessation Jurisprudence
employment as the office continues to
exist §1. Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship. – The factual
Section 31(1) of EO 292 Section 31(2) of EO 292 finding of the DARAB relying on the certifications issued by the
MARO in holding that he is a tenant on the disputed landholding.
PRESIDENT’S POWER OF It is properly a mixed finding of fact and law warrant judicial
GENERAL SUPERVISION review. Certifications issued are not binding (BAUTISTA v.
ARANETA, 326 SCRA 234).
Power of Supervision
It is the mere oversight over the local government units. It means §2. Classification of lands. –
overseeing or the authority to see that the subordinate officers (a) General rule: The classification of public land is the
perform their duties. It means the power of ensuring that the laws duty, the function of the LMB Director and his decision
are faithfully executed, or that the subordinate offices are acting when affirmed by the Secretary of the DENR as to this
within the law. It is not incompatible with discipline which then question fact, is conclusive and not subject to judicial
must be construed to authorize the president to order thereon review;
an investigation of the act or conduct of local officials (JOSON v. (b) Exception: If there is arbitrariness, capriciousness,
TORRES, 290 SCRA 281). there is an irregular proceeding, a violation of the
requirements of due process.
Power of Supervision Power of Control
It means overseeing or the It means the power of an §3. Determination of prima facie cause, factual question. –
power or authority of an officer to alter or modify or The calibration of evidence to assess whether a prima facie graft
officer to see that nullify or set aside what a case exists against private respondents is a question of fact.
subordinate officers perform subordinate officer has done Mandamus will lie to compel an officer to perform a ministerial
their duties. If the latter fail in the performance of his duty but not to compel the performance of a discretionary act
or neglect them, the former duties and to substitute requiring the exercise of judgment, as in determining whether or
may take such action or step judgment of the former for not probable cause exists against them (SAMSON v. OMB). In
as prescribed by law to that of the latter. short, determinable of probable cause by the prosecutor is an
make them perform their exercise of discretion not compellable by mandamus.
duties. Does not include any
restraining authority over Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial mode to discover
such body. But he cannot whether or not there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime
prescribe his own manner has been committed and he person charged is responsible. The
for the doing of the act. Supreme Court maintains consistent policy of non-interference
in determination of the OMB of existence of probable cause,
§1. Covers Liga ng Mga Barangay. – President’s power of provided there is no grave abuse of discretion. Policy is based
general supervision extends to the Liga ng Mga Barangay. The not only on respect for investigatory and prosecutory powers
representatives of the Liga sit in an ex officio capacity at granted by the Constitution, but upon practicality. Otherwise the
municipal, city and provincial sanggunian. Liga is the vehicle Supreme Court will be hampered by innumerable petitions
through which the barangay participates in enactment of (NAPOLES v. OMBUDSMAN [2016]).
ordinances (BITO-ONON v. FERNANDEZ, 350 SCRA 732).
§4. Ascertainment of good faith is question of fact. – The
But the Liga is not subject to control by Chief Executive or his ascertainment of good faith, or the lack of it, and determination
alter ego. The acts of DILG nullifying results of Liga elections of whether or not due diligence and prudence were exercised by
and appointing Rayos went beyond supervision and already the proponents and implementors of Disbursement Acceleration
constituted direct interference with the political affairs of the Program (DAP) are deemed as questions of fact. (ARAULLO v.
AQUINO [2015]).
barangay (DAVID v. JUDGE PAREDES, 439 SCRA 130).
In same case, it was discussed that the Doctrine of Operative IMMUNITIES

Fact is when the Supreme Court recognizes that prior to the
determination of the unconstitutionality of the law or executive Grant of Immunities Must be Conferred by Law
order, it is an operative fact that produced consequences that Administrative bodies cannot grant criminal and civil immunities
cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. to persons unless the law explicitly confers such prerogative or
power. The following are the instances:
As to Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
[1] PCGG can grant criminal and civil immunities under EO 14.
Decisions are Subject to Judicial Review
All errors or decisions of administrative bodies as to questions As to criminal immunity. – PCGG under EO 14A may grant
of law are subject to judicial review consistent with Article VIII of immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who testifies
the 1987 Constitution. The mode of review is by Rule 43 (not by in any conduct of investigation by the PCGG in the matter of the
Rule 45 which is from CA).[But CSC now goes to CA]. alleged ill-gotten acquisition by the Marcoses, cronies or his
associates.
When Courts Can Review Administrative Decisions
✓ Determine constitutionality of a law, treaty or order; As to civil immunity. – PCGG’s power to grant civil immunity
✓ Determine jurisdiction of administrative body; must be understood following Article 2028 of the Civil Code
✓ Determine any other question of law; where a compromise shall be deemed as a contract whereby the
✓ Determine question of fact when necessary to parties by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put
determine either a constitutional or jurisdiction issue, and end to one already commenced. Amicable settlement is
the commission of abuse of authority or error of law. applicable in PCGG cases.
Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts [2] Ombudsman Act (RA 6770)

In cases of mixed question of facts and law, they are subject to The Ombudsman is granted with authority to confer immunity
judicial review. When a finding of fact is dependent upon a from criminal prosecution to any person who is essential to the
question of law, the court will, in order to resolve the question of successful prosecution of the case the Ombudsman may file
law, examine the factual setting, including the evidence adduced against any public officer. Subject to the conditions:
thereto. The more important issues, which is of law, assimilate (1) Not immune from for perjury/false testimony
the facts (e.g. tenancy issue) (TUAZON v. CA, 118 SCRA 484). (2) Not exempt from demotion or removal from office
(3) Refusal to appear or testify may result to removal of
Modes of Review immunity (Section 17).
PEA Dismissal (personnel action) → CSC THREE-FOLD RESPONSIBILITY

CSC (via Rule 43) → CA OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
CA (via Rule 45) → SC (LACSON v. PEA [2011]).
Responsibility of Public Offices
OP → CA (SANADO v. CA, 356 SCRA 546) A basic principle of the law on public officers is that a public
officer or employee is under three-fold responsibility for violation
OMB (Rule 43) → CA of duty or for a wrongful act or omission, for which he may be
held (1) civilly, (2) criminally, and (3) administratively liable.
Executive Branch → MR to the CSC
CSC (via Rule 43) → CA Independent Remedies
CA (via rule 45) → SC General Rule: Remedies may then be invoked separately,
alternately, simultaneously or successively.
Rule 45 Rule 65
Petition for Review on Petition for Certiorari Exception: When law expressly provides for prior final
Certiorari administrative determination an example is that of unfair labor
Mode of Appeal Original Action practice under the Labor Code, which requires a prior final
Review of judgments, final Dwells on jurisdictional judgment of finding of ULP before there can be a criminal
orders or awards rendered errors whether or not the prosecution. On the other hand, no such requirement applies for
by lower court or tribunal lower tribunal acted with criminal complaints for PD 957 (CHUA v. ANG).
involving pure questions of grave abuse of discretion
law amount to lack or excess of §1. Where the law is silent, administrative case can proceed
jurisdiction independently. – In the present case, the petitioners have
expressly chosen to pursue criminal prosecution as their
Points to Remember remedy, but the prosecutor dismissed their complaint. The
Factual findings are accorded not only respect but also finality prosecutor’s dismissal for prematurity was apparently on the
which is binding on the court as long as supported by substantial view that an administrative finding of violation must first be
evidence. However, the courts may still exercise judicial review obtained before recourse can be made to criminal prosecution.
over the factual findings if it falls under the exceptions. Nothing in PD 957 expressly requires prior administrative
finding. Where the law is silent on this matter, as in this case,
Errors or decisions in the administrative decisions can be the the fundamental principle – that administrative cases are
subject of appeal as long as there is exhaustion of administrative independent from criminal actions – fully applies (CHUA v. ANG).
remedies.
Hierarchy of Evidence
If the basis of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or (1) Proof beyond reasonable doubt – criminal cases
excess of jurisdiction, certiorari may be availed, but it must be (2) Clear and convincing evidence – imputation of fraud
shown there are is no speedy, adequate or available remedy left. (3) Preponderance of evidence – civil cases; and
(4) Substantial evidence – administrative cases
§1. Dismissal in criminal case does not affect administrative Exception to the separation rule: When public officer resigned in
case. – A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial bad faith, or specifically, when resignation was done and made
question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in anticipation of charges (PAGANO v. NAZARRO). Here, Pagano
in the administrative proceedings. Criminal and civil cases are was charged for shortage of around P1.4 Million as cashier.
altogether different from administrative matters, such that the
disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and NOTE: If the administrative case was filed prior to resignation,
vice versa. The acquittal of respondent of the criminal charge is case will proceed; if it was filed after the resignation, the case
not a bar to the administrative proceedings. Moreover, this Court will no longer prosper unless there is bad faith.
in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different
capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal cases §6. Effect of withdrawal of complaint. – The withdrawal of a
(GATCHALIAN TALENTS POOL v. NALDOZA, 315 SCRA 406). complaint or desistance of complainant will not automatically
result to dismissal of administrative case (GURO v. DURONIO).
§2. Different hierarchy of evidence is involved. – The court, An administrative complaint against public officers cannot just
in dismissing the criminal complaint, was simply saying that the be withdrawn at any time by the simple expediency of suddenly
prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond claiming a change of mind (NONES v. ORMITA, 390 SCRA 520).
reasonable doubt. There is another class of evidence which,
though insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is An affidavit of desistance will not automatically result to the
adequate in administrative cases; the substantial evidence rules dismissal of an administrative case or to the exoneration of the
in administrative proceedings merely requires such relevant respondent. This is because complainant is merely a witness in
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to an administrative case. He cannot, by his own desistance, divest
support a conclusion. In this case, even if the criminal case was court of its jurisdiction, for the court has an interest apart from
dismissed by the RTC, he can still be dismissed from service by his own in determining the truth and, when such is necessary,
the Ombudsman (OCAMPO v. OMBUDSMAN, 322 SCRA 92). imposing sanctions against erring court employees (JACOB v.
TAMBO, 396 SCRA 148).
Similarly, in MELENDRES v. PAGC, the Court emphasized that
the dismissal of cases in the Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman §7. Rule on anonymous complaints – Although anonymous
does not mean absolution of the respondent in administrative complaints are received with great caution, originating as they
charges before PAGC/OP which subsequently dismissed him do from unknown authors, such complaint do not always justify
from service. the outright dismissal, particular when the allegations may be
easily verified and established by other competent evidence
§3. Administrative offenses do not prescribe. – It bears (ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT v. RILLORTA, 505 SCRA 537).
stressing that it is not in accordance with the norms of morality
for a woman, even if single, to maintain an illicit relationship with Condonation Doctrine (now abandoned)
a married man. Even if such relationship had ended, the stigma
of immorality still attaches to the parties, especially the woman. Note: The abandonment however is only prospective hence, it
This is specially so when the persons concerned are public is still important to understand the nuances when it is applicable.
employees who are supposed to maintain a high standard of
morality in order to live up to their role as models in society. The §1. Aguinaldo doctrine. – Public officials cannot be subject to
fact that illicit relationship between Floria and Rodrigo Abadilla disciplinary action for administrative conduct committed during
has ceased will only mitigate her culpability (FLORIA v. SUNGA). a prior term and was elected by same electorate (AGUINALDO v.
SANTOS, 212 SCRA 768).
Q, What does Section 20 of RA 6770 then provide for?
“Section 20. Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman may §2. Rationale – The doctrine is grounded on the idea that an
not conduct the necessary investigation of any administrative act official’s re-election expresses the sovereign will of the
or omission complained of if it believes that: xxx The complaint electorate to forgive or condone any act or omission constituting
was filed after one (1) year from the occurrence of the act or a ground for administrative discipline which was committed
omission complained of.” This does not refer to prescription but during his previous term.
the discretion of the Ombudsman not to conduct investigation if
filed after 1 year from occurrence. §3. Applies to administrative cases only. – While a reelected
official may no longer be held administratively liable for signing
Rationale for imprescriptibility: The object sought is not the a questionable contract before his reelection, this will not
punishment of the officer but the improvement of public service prejudice the filing of any case other than administrative against
and preservation of public faith and confidence. While complaint him (GARCIA v. MOJICA, 314 SCRA 207).
was filed more than seven (7) years after commission, the
Ombudsman may still investigate said anonymous complaint §4. Doctrine cannot benefit appointive officer seeking
filed in 1996 (OMBUDSMAN v. SAHAGUN, 562 SCRA 123). elective officer – The condonation of an administrative offense
takes place only when the public official is re-elected despite the
§4. Death does not preclude finding of liability. – The death pendency of an administrative case against him. In the case of
of retirement of officer from the service does not preclude a Maricar, prior to her election as Councilor of now Malabon City,
finding of administrative liability to which he shall be answerable. she held an appointive, not an elective, position (OMBUDSMAN
Jurisdiction over the administrative complaint was not lost by v. TORRES, 566 SCRA 365).
mere fact of Caube’s death during the pendency of proceedings.
The tribunal retains jurisdiction to pronounce him innocent or §5. Does not extend to reappointed coterminous employees
guilty (LOYAO v. CAUBE, 402 SCRA 33). – Electorate’s condonation of prior admin infractions of reelected
official cannot be extended to reappointed coterminous
§5. Separation from service – The PREVAILING DOCTRINE employees. No disenfranchisement of electorate to speak of, in
is that administration jurisdiction can no longer be exercised by the case of reappointed coterminous employees. Since
the Ombudsman if public officer has already separated from the petitioners hold appointive posts, they cannot claim mandate of
service prior to the filing of charges (OMB v. ANDUTAN [2011]). electorate (SALUMBIDES v. OMB [2010]).
§6. Abandonment of the condonation doctrine. – To begin Res Judicata

with, the concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary
requirement of accountability to the people at all times, as General Rule: Decision of administrative agencies have, upon
mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly inconsistent their finality, the binding effect of a final judgment within the
with the idea that an elective local official's administrative liability purview of res judicata doctrine.
for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off
by the fact that he was elected to a second term of office, or Exceptions:
even another elective post. Election is not a mode of condoning 1. Supervening events make it imperative to modify a final
an administrative offense, and there is simply no constitutional judgment to harmonize with prevailing circumstances;
or statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support notion that an 2. Its application would sacrifice justice to technicality;
official elected for a different term is fully absolved of any 3. Parties involved waived it or do not timely raised it as a
administrative liability arising from an offense done during a prior defense;
term (CARPIO-MORALES v. OMB, NOVEMBER 10, 2015) But MR 4. Issue of citizenship
and clarification was denied with finality on APRIL 12, 2016.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
§7. Abandonment is prospective. – The condonation doctrine
applies prospectively since judicial decisions applying the laws Article XVI, Section 6. The State shall establish and maintain
or Const., until reversed, form part of our legal system. Doctrine one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian
still applies in cases that transpired prior to the Carpio-Morales in character, to be administered and controlled by a national
ruling (OMBUDSMAN v. VERGARA [2017]). police commission. The authority of local executives over the
police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.
§8. Must be invoked as a matter of defense. – A decision
absolving a respondent elective public official rendered in an §1. Authority of local chief executives: operational control
administrative case by OMB, being final and unappealable and supervision – It is the power to direct, superintend and
pursuant to the rules of the OMB, may still be assailed by petition oversee police investigation of crime, crime prevention activities;
for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA). The abandonment of direct employment and deployment of PNP elements to ensure
the doctrine of condonation took effect on April 12, 2016. public safety and effective maintenance of peace and order .
However, the application by the OMB of doctrine of condonation ➢ Except: 30 days prior and 30 days after the election
prior to its abandonment without the respondent elective public (Section 62, RA 8551).
official invoking the same as a defense was whimsical and
amounted to grave abuse of discretion. Condonation, being a §2. Relationship between PNP and AFP. – PNP supports the
matter of defense, must be specifically invoked by respondent AFP on matters involving the suppression of insurgency (and
elective public official. Yet, as his term as Municipal Mayor had other serious threats to national security), except where the
expired, the penalty of dismissal from service can no longer be President calls on PNP to support to AFP in combat operations.
meted on him, it becoming moot. Still, he should suffer the
accessory penalties (CREBELLO v. CAPOQUIAN [2019]). §3. PLEB concurrent with PNP Chief/Regional Directors. –
Power of PLEB to dismiss PNP members upon citizen’s
§9. Condonation may still apply even if there is a break in complaint against respondent under Section 42 of RA 6975 is
election. – It is inconsequential whether said reelection be on concurrent with PNP Chief/Regional Directors under Sec. 45.
another public office or on an election year not immediately PNP Chief and regional directors are vested with the power to
succeeding the last, as long as the electorate that reelected the summarily dismiss erring PNP members. Thus, the power to
public official be the same (OMB v. VERGARA [2017]). dismiss PNP members is not only the prerogative of PLEB but
concurrently exercised by the PNP Chief and regional director
Aggrieved Who May Appeal the Administrative Decision (QUIAMBIO v. COURT OF APPEALS [2005]).
§1. Appeal by whom. – Under PD 807, Section 39 provides that Mode of Review
where allowable, appeals shall be made by the party adversely
affected by the decision within 15 days from receipt of the PLEB / PNP-RD → RAB | PNP Chief → NAB
decision, unless a petition for reconsideration is filed.
RAB & NAB (NAPOLCOM)
§2. Decisions exonerating officers are still reviewable – With
this, the CSC can be and is the aggrieved party who can appeal → DILG SECRETARY
the CA decision to the SC. By this ruling the SC abandoned and
overruled prior decisions that the Civil Service Law does not DILG SECRETARY → CSC
contemplate a review of decisions exonerating public officers
from administrative charges (CSC v. DACOYCOY, 306 SSCRA CSC→ CA
426). Because when the CSC is the aggrieved party, it seriously
prejudiced to civil service system. CA → SC
§3. Mode of review – CSC (Rule 43) → CA (Rule 45) → SC §4. Court-martials have no jurisdiction over PNP members
criminal cases – Criminal cases involving PNP members are
§4. OMB can intervene in a petition for review on certiorari within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts. Courts
before the CA – As a competent disciplining body, the martial are not courts but instrumentalities of executive power.
Ombudsman has the right to seek redress on the apparently
erroneous issuance by this Honorable Court of the Writ of §5. Authority to appoint local chief of police. – The Regional
Preliminary Injunction enjoining the implementation of the Police Director has prerogative to name the 5 eligibles for
Ombudsman’s Joint Decision imposing upon petitioner the position of city police chief (three for provincial chief) from a pool
penalty of suspension for one (1) year (OMB v. SAMANIEGO, 564 of eligible officers screened by the board of the PNP without
SCRA 569). interference of local executives (ANDAYA v. RTC, 319 SCRA 696).
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES §3. Rule as to Appeals. –
General Rule: Members of the AFP and other persons subject General Rule: As to appeals, the state must be represented by
to military law, including members of CAFGU who commit crime the Office of the Solicitor General
penalized under the Revised Penal Code (such as coup d’etat),
other special penal laws, or local ordinances shall be tried by the Exception: If ends of substantial justice be served; whatever
proper civil court. [“civil court” means regular court”] defect in the filing of this petition without the intervention of the
Solicitor General was cured when in the Consolidated Reply, the
Exception: Where the civil court, before arraignment, has then OSG signed as co-counsel for the Republic.
determined the offense to be service connected, then the
offending soldier shall be tried by a court martial. In REPUBLIC v. DESIERTO (389 SCRA 452), the Court allowed the
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the Republic of the
Exception to the Exception: Where the President, in the Philippines through the PCGG assailing the dismissal by the
interest of justice, directs before arraignment that any such Ombudsman of the graft complaint against Cojuangco, et al.
crime shall be tried by the proper civil court. Although the OSG should have filed the petition in behalf of the
Republic. Assuming the PCGG has no authority to file petition,
§1. What are service-connected offense? – These are crimes its unauthorized filing was ratified, and the defect was cured
or offenses shall be limited to those defined in the Articles 54- when the OSG signed as co-counsel for the Republic.
70, 72-92 and 95-97 of the Articles of War. Violations of these - But the OSG may call on PCGG for assistance and
Articles are triable by courts martial. This delineates the authorize it to appear or represent the government
jurisdiction between civil courts and the courts martial over
crimes or offenses committed by military personnel. Such OMBUDSMAN
delineation of jurisdiction is necessary to preserve the peculiar
nature of military justice system over military personnel charged Constitutional Mandate
with service-connected offenses. The military justice system is As protector of the people, OMB has the power, function and
disciplinary in nature, aimed at achieving the highest form of duty to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner
discipline to ensure the highest degree of military efficiency against public officials and to investigate any act or omission of
(TRILLANES v. ABAYA, 498 SCRA 446). any public official when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Its jurisdiction therein encompasses all kinds of malfeasance,
General Rule: The Solicitor General is lawyer of government, misfeasance and nonfeasance committed by any office during
its agencies, and officials. He represents a public official in all his tenure of office.
civil, criminal and special proceedings, arising from the latter’s
acts in his official capacity. No less than the Constitution vests Office of the Ombudsman
with the administrative disciplinary authority to "investigate x x x
Rule: Actions in the name of the Republic of the Philippines or any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or
its instrumentality, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, will be agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
summarily dismissed. improper, or inefficient." Consistent with this constitutional
mandate, RA 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act
Exceptions: of 1989," provides for the jurisdiction of the Office of the
(1) When the government office is adversely affected by Ombudsman to hold erring government officers or employees
the contrary stand of OSG (ORBOS v. CSC [1990]). administratively liable, among others.
(2) When the Solicitor General deputizes legal officers of
government bureaus, agencies and officers to assist §1. Authority to conduct preliminary investigation. – OMB is
him and to appear or represent the Government clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to
involving their respective offices.(Section 35, Chapter prosecute all criminal cases involving public officer, employees
12, Book IV, EO 292). not only within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those
within jurisdiction of regular courts (UY v. OMBUDSMAN [2001]).
When Solicitor General Does Not Represent Officer
When such official or agent is being charged criminally or being §2. Misconduct of government lawyers. – The allegation in
sued civilly for damages arising from a felony. the complaint against the government lawyers, which included
their failure to evaluate CSC records and documentary evidence
§1. Mention as “Director” does not transform case to that all relate to their misconduct in the discharge of their official
one of official capacity. – The complaint for damages filed by duties as government lawyers in the CSC and it is within the
private respondent Raymundo with RTC, arising from alleged administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of their superior or the
malicious administrative suit against her, merely identified Office of the Ombudsman (ALICIAS v. MACATANGAY [2017]).
petitioner Pascual as Director of the Telecommunications Office
but did not categorically state that he was being sued in his §3. Disbarment case against government lawyers. – In case
official capacity. Her mention of petitioner’s position does not of Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay, the Court made a jurisprudential
transform the action into one against him in his official capacity survey of administrative cases against government lawyers and
(PASCUAL v. JUDGE BELTRAN, 505 SCRA 559). affirmed that administrative supervision over them is lodged with
Ombudsman, not the IBP.
§2. OSG not authorized to represent for felony or damages
arising therefrom. – OSG is not authorized to represent a Here, complainant wants to hold respondent administratively
public official at any stage of a criminal case or in a civil suit for liable for the latter's alleged act of misrepresentation involving a
damages arising from a felony. This applies to all public officials matter related to her official functions when she met with
and employees in the executive, legislative and judicial complainant's son and produced a photocopy of a spurious title.
branches of government (URBANO v. CHAVEZ, 183 SCRA 347). At the time, respondent was the Chief of the Legal Services
Division of the DAR Provincial Office in Misamis Oriental. Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
Respondent is certainly a government lawyer within the
administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Its jurisdiction therein encompasses all kinds of malfeasance,
Ombudsman. Jurisdiction over the disbarment complaint is not misfeasance and nonfeasance committed by any office during
lodged with the IBP, but the Office of the Ombudsman. The his tenure of office. But the authority of the Ombudsman is
Office of the Ombudsman can hold erring government officers shared or concurrent with similarly authorized government
or employees administratively liable, among others (TIU V. agencies (SANCHEZ v. DEMETRIOU, 227 SCRA 637).
CAPINPUYAN, A.C. NO. 9406 (NOTICE), [SEPTEMBER 6, 2017])
§1. Authority to conduct preliminary investigation. – OMB is
As reiterated in BUFFE v. GONZALES (AC NO. 8618 [2016]), clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to
Considering that both Exconde and Madrona are public officers prosecute all criminal cases involving public officer, employees
being charged for actions, which are allegedly unfair and not only within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those
discriminatory, involving their official functions during their within jurisdiction of regular courts (UY v. OMBUDSMAN [2001]).
tenure, the present case should be resolved by the Office of the
Ombudsman as the appropriate government agency. Indeed, §2. No jurisdiction involving money claims. – A money claim
the IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are against a councilor is within the jurisdiction of a court of proper
charged with administrative offenses involving their official jurisdiction, and if the money is against the City Government, the
duties. For such acts, government lawyers fall under the claim is within the jurisdiction of the City Council (Sangguniang
disciplinary authority of either their superior or the Ombudsman. Panglungsod), or other proper government agency, but not the
Moreover, an anomalous situation will arise if the IBP asserts Office of the Ombudsman (ORCULLO v. GERVACIO).
jurisdiction and decides against a government lawyer, while the
disciplinary authority finds in favor of the government lawyer. §3. OMB-DOJ MOA 03-29-2012 –
1. OMB has the primary jurisdiction to conduct
Powers and Functions preliminary investigation and inquest over cases that
Under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Office are cognizable by the Sandiganbayan;
of the Ombudsman is envisioned to be the "protector of the 2. OMB and DOJ both has concurrent jurisdiction over
people" against the inept, abusive, and corrupt in the cases within jurisdiction of the RTC/MTC; but the
Government, to function essentially as a complaints and action office where such complaint is filed for preliminary
bureau. This constitutional vision of a Philippine Ombudsman investigation acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of
practically intends to make the Ombudsman an authority to the other
directly check and guard against the ills, abuses and excesses 3. Cases investigated by the OMB but referred to DOJ
of the bureaucracy (GONZALES v. OP, GR 196231 [2014]). for prosecution are under DOJ control.
Inordinate Delay Doctrine NOTE: The OMB will usually insist in taking cognizance only
Every accused has the rights to due process and to speedy when the cases are cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
disposition of cases. Inordinate delay in the resolution and
termination of a preliminary investigation will result in the Officers Not Subject to OMB Disciplinary Authority
dismissal of the case against the accused. Delay, however, is
not determined through mere mathematical reckoning but The following officers are not subject to such authority:
through examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding 1. Impeachable Officials
each case. Courts should appraise a reasonable period from the a. President
point of view of how much time a competent and independent b. Vice-President
public officer would need in relation to the complexity of a given c. Members of the Supreme Court
case. Nonetheless, the accused must invoke his or her d. Members of Constitutional Commissions
constitutional rights in a timely manner. The failure to do so could e. Ombudsman
be considered by the courts as a waiver of right (CAGANG v. i. It does not include the Deputy
SANDIGANBAYAN [2018], EN BANC, LEONEN, J.). Ombudsman (OMB v. MOJICA).
2. Members of Congress
§1. Three (3) years delay in conduct of preliminary investigation 3. Members of the Judiciary
violated the accused’s rights to due process and speedy a. Article VIII, Section 6: SC has exclusive
disposition of cases (TATAD v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 159 SCRA 70). administrative supervision over all courts and
court personnel.
§2. The Office of the Ombudsman, due to its failure to resolve
the criminal charges against petitioner for more than six years, §1. Criminal case against judge arising from administrative
has transgressed on the constitutional right of petition to due duties . – Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other
process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him court employees arises from their administrative duties, the
(ANGCHANGCO v. OMBUDSMAN). OMB must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to
the Supreme Court for determination whether said judge or court
§3. The right to speedy disposition extends to all parties in all employee had acted within the scope of his administrative duties
cases, including civil and administrative. No vexatious and (MACEDA v. VASQUEZ, 221 SCRA 464).
oppressive delays affected Jurado since in the interim he was
not made to undergo any investigative proceeding prior to the §2. The validity of the judge’s order directing attachment of the
findings of the body. government property and issuing writ of execution can only be
inquired into by the Supreme Court (FUENTES v. OMB).
In this case the act complaint of had occurred in 1992 but the
charge was made in 1997 and the decision was made in 1999 §3. A case of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide is not
involving 6 months suspension of the customs employee for office related. It is in no wat related to the performance of his
neglect of duty. Again, no oppressive delay as he was not made duties as a judge. Thus, the OMB has jurisdiction preliminary
to undergo investigative proceeding (OMB v. JURADO). investigation and file case in court (GARCIA v. MIRO).
Preventive Suspension The motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within three
(3) days from filing: provided, that only one motion for
Section 24. Preventive Suspension. — The Ombudsman reconsideration shall be entertained.
or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or
employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in Findings of fact by the Officer of the Ombudsman when
his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Any
charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of
oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more
performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal than one (1) month's salary shall be final and
from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in unappealable xxx
office may prejudice the case filed against him.
Penalties Meted Mode of Review
The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is - Public Censure Final and unappealable
terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more - Reprimand
than six (6) months, without pay, except when the delay in the - Suspension not
disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is more than 1 month But may be the subject to Rule 65 if
due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in - Fine not more than there is arbitrariness or grave abuse
which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in 1 month salary of discretion
computing the period of suspension herein provided.
NOTE: The discretion as to the length of period is under the OMB → [RULE 65] → CA
discretion of the Ombudsman or the Deputy.
Exoneration Under REYES v. BELISARIO,
§1. “Any officer or employee under his authority” – The notably, exoneration is not
power of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend any officer or mentioned in Section 27 as final and
employee “under his authority” means that he can preventively unappealable. However, its inclusion
suspend all officials under investigation by his office, regardless is implicit for, if a sentence of
of the branch of government in which they are employed, censure, reprimand and a one-
excepting those removable by impeachment, members of month suspension is considered
Congress and the Judiciary (GARCIA v. MOJICA, 314 SCRA 207). final and unappealable, so should
exoneration.
§2. Power to preventively suspend only to the Ombudsman
and his Deputies. – The power to preventively suspend is In CREBELLO v. OMBUDSMAN [GR
granted only to the Ombudsman and the Deputy Ombudsman 232325 (2019)], OMB decision
under Sec. 24 of RA 6770. Petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa- absolving respondent can still be
Ignacio could only recommend to the Ombudsman or, in this assailed by petition for certiorari to
case because the latter’s inhibition, to designated Deputy the CA. It is not Rule 43 since
Ombudsman to place Customs Deputy Commissioner Valera exoneration, under Belisario, is final
under preventive suspension (OMB v. VALERA). and unappealable.
§3. Period of preventive suspension cannot be credited to OMB → [RULE 65] → CA

the penalty meted out. – Preventive suspension decreed by
the Ombudsman by virtue of his authority under Section 21 of
RA 6770, in relation to Section 9 of Administrative Order No. 07, All other cases Rule 43: Appeal to the Court of
is not meant to be a penalty but a means taken to insure the Appeals within 15 days from receipt
proper and impartial conduct of an investigation (YABUT v. OMB). of written notice of decision
§4. No need for full-blown hearing. – Being a mere order for OMB → [RULE 43] → CA
preventive suspension, the questioned order of the Ombudsman
was validly issued even without a full-blown hearing and the
formal presentation of evidence by the parties (BUENASEDA v. OMB’s Determination of Liability is Mandatory
FLAVIER, 226 SCRA 646). The power of the OMB to determine and impose administrative
liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory
Finality and Execution of Decision (LEDESMA v. CA). That the “refusal without just cause of any
officer to comply with the order of the Ombudsman to remove,
Section 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. — (1) All suspend, demote, fine, censure or prosecute an erring officer” is
provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are a ground for disciplinary action (Section 15[3], RA 6770) strongly
immediately effective and executory. indicates that OMB’s recommendation is not merely advisory but
mandatory without bounds of law (FAJARDO v OMB [2012]).
A motion for reconsideration of any order, directive or
decision of the Office of the Ombudsman must be filed within Effect of Appeal on OMB Decision
five (5) days after receipt of written notice and shall be
entertained only on any of the following grounds: An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In
(1) New evidence has been discovered which materially case penalty is suspension or removal and respondent wins the
affects the order, directive or decision; appeal, he shall be considered as being under preventive
(2) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed suspension. In addition, filing of MR does not stay immediate
prejudicial to the interest of the movant. implementation of Ombudsman’s order of dismissal since a
(3) decision of the Office of the Ombudsman shall be executed as
a matter of course (VILLASENOR v. OMB [2014]).
Cases on Preliminary Investigation Forfeiture of Ill-Gotten Wealth.
§1. Determination of probable cause cannot be subject of PCGG and OMB’s Role
mandamus. – Mandamus will not lie to compel the OMB to file PCGG is empowered to bring proceedings of forfeiture of
the case in court because this involves the exercise of discretion property allegedly unlawfully acquired before February 25, 1986
BUT if the dismissal of the Ombudsman was issued with grave while power to investigate ill-gotten wealth acquired after the
abuse of discretion, there being evidence on record to prosecute said date shall be with the Ombudsman (RP v. SB 236 SCRA 242).
the case, the same may be set aside by the Court ( PCGG v. To reiterate prior to February 25, 1986, the Ombudsman is
DESIERTO [2007]). without authority to initiate proceedings for recovery for ill-gotten
wealth amassed prior to such date. But OMB has authority to
§2. May the OMB be compelled to issue an order for investigate even before said date but pursuant to his general
production of records? – The petitioners may not compel the investigatory powers (ROMUALDEZ v. SB, RA 6770).
Ombudsman to order the production of certain documents if in
his judgment such documents are not necessary in order to COMMISSION ON AUDIT
establish the guilt, or innocence, of the accused (MAMBURAO v.
OMB, 344 SCRA 818). Article IX-D. Section 2(1). The Commission on Audit shall
have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and
§3. One cannot be compelled to “answer” a COA report. – A settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of,
COA Special Audit Report is not equivalent to affidavits required and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or
under (Rules of Procedure) of the Ombudsman for the conduct held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its
of preliminary investigation. Duterte et al. were asked to file a subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
comment on a COA Audit Report, they were being subjected to government-owned or controlled corporations with original
preliminary investigation without being so informed. Also, they charters, and on a post-audit basis: xxx
were not furnished a single affidavit of any person charging them
of any offense (DUTERTE v. SB, 289 SCRA 721). (2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to
the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit
But the Duterte ruling does not apply where the OMB order and examination, establish the techniques and methods
requiring the petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit was not required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing
only accompanied by the COA audit report but also the joint rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and
affidavit and supplemental joint affidavit of auditors (GARCIA v. disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
PRIMO, 397 SCRA 41). extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of
government funds and properties.
Effect on OMB as to COA’s Non-Finding of Liability
§1. COA & Central Bank have concurrent audit jurisdiction
Rule: It does not bar the administrative aspect prosecution as to government banks. - The COA’s jurisdiction covers all
because the clearance issued by the COA is only with respect government agencies, offices, bureaus and units, including
to the accounting rules. This fact will not be a sufficient basis for GOCCs, and even non-government entities enjoying subsidy
the dismissal by the OMB by the criminal case filed against the from the government. However, nothing in Sec. 26 of PD 1445
same public officer. states that the COA’s power to examine and audit government
banks is exclusive, thereby preventing private audit of
§1. COA’s approval of a government official’s disbursements – government agencies concurrently with the COA audit. Even
and the conclusive effect of the finality of the COA’s decision on with private audit the COA will still conduct its usual examination
the executive branch of the government – only relates to the and audit, and its findings and conclusions will still bind
administrative aspect of the matter of his accountability but it government agencies and their officials (DBP v. COA).
does not foreclose the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate
and determine whether there is a crime to be prosecuted for §2. Rule on “informer’s reward.” – The entitlement of informer
which such official is answerable. While COA may regard the reward as determined by the BIR and Department of Finance,
official to have substantially complied with its accounting rules, although conclusive on the executive agencies, it is not binding
this fact is not sufficient to dismiss the criminal case on COA (CIR v. COA, 218 SCRA 204).
(AGUINALDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 265 SCRA 121.
§3. COA cannot disallow the payment of back wages to the
§2. The fact that petitioners’ accounts and vouchers had passed employees which had been decreed pursuant to a final CSC
in audit is no ground to enjoin the fiscal from conducting therein decision (CAGATIN v. COA, 218 SCRA 204).
a preliminary investigation to determine their criminal liability for
malversation (RAMOS v. AQUINO). This is because a finding of §4. COA disallowance of extension of foreign consultant service
probable cause does not derive its veracity from the COA embodied in the KFW foreign loan for urban housing project was
findings but from the OMB’s independent determination property made since it is within the constitutionally mandated
(DIMAYUGA v. OMB [2006]). duties of the COA to disallow unnecessary expense of public
funds (NHA v. COA, 226 SCRA 65).
Remedies if OMB Found Probable Cause
§5. COA classification as to who were entitled to the social
[1] One Motion for Reconsideration – within 5 days from notice amelioration benefits and excluding those employees of the
and with leave of court where information has been filed. The Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) hired after October 31,
filing of MR or reinvestigation does not prevent filing information. 1989 has no legal basis. RA 6758 (Salary Standardization Law)
and Corporate Compensation Circular 10 (the Implementing
[2] CA has no jurisdiction over OMB Resolution in Criminal Rules) do not make any distinction between those hired before
Cases. – CA only has review on administrative case. The and after October 31, 1989 (CRUZ v. COA, 368 SCRA 85).
remedy to question finding of probable cause by OMB is with the
Supreme Court. END OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Administrative Law: General Principles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Administrative Law: General Principles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Administrative Law: General Principles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEW NOTES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | RM SANTIAGO | 2020-2021 1

Types of Administrative Bodies

Agency §3. DOH is an unincorporated agency. – The DOH is an

Adjudicatory Powers §7. PTC has no quasi-judicial powers. – No quasi-judicial

Independence Enjoyed Administrative Subpoena Judicial Subpoena

REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS §7. Disciplinary decisions by the Sanggunian must be

Rule Involved §6. Injunction on matters involving labor issues should be

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED PRINCIPLE OF PRESIDENTIAL

In same case, it was discussed that the Doctrine of Operative IMMUNITIES

Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts [2] Ombudsman Act (RA 6770)

PEA Dismissal (personnel action) → CSC THREE-FOLD RESPONSIBILITY

§6. Abandonment of the condonation doctrine. – To begin Res Judicata

ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES §3. Rule as to Appeals. –

§3. Period of preventive suspension cannot be credited to OMB → [RULE 65] → CA

Cases on Preliminary Investigation Forfeiture of Ill-Gotten Wealth.

You might also like