ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES DOCTRINE the rule is within the delegated authority of

the administrative agency; (ii) whether it is

PERALTA VS. CSC reasonable; and (iii) whether it was issued
When an administrative or executive agency pursuant to proper procedure. But the court
renders an opinion or issues a statement of is not free to substitute its judgment as to the
policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law; and desirability or wisdom of the rule for the
the administrative interpretation of the law legislative body, by its delegation of
is at best advisory, for it is the courts that administrative judgment, has committed those
finally determine what the law means. It has also questions to administrative judgments and not to
been held that interpretative regulations need not judicial judgments. In the case of an
be published. interpretative rule, the inquiry is not into the
xx validity but into the correctness or propriety of
Javellana vs. DILG the rule. As a matter of power a court, when
As a matter of policy, this Court accords great confronted with an interpretative rule, is free to(i)
respect to the decisions and/or actions of give the force of law to the rule; (ii) go to
administrative authorities not only because of the the opposite extreme and substitute its
doctrine of separation of powers but also for judgment; or (iii) give some intermediate
their presumed degree of authoritative weight to the
knowledgeability and expertise in the interpretative rule.
enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted
to their jurisdiction.
Notice and Hearing or Publication Considering that the questioned regulation
xx would affect the substantive rights of
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CA, respondent as explained above, it therefore
CTA, Fortune Tobacco follows that petitioners should have applied the
An administrative rule is merely interpretative in pertinent provisions of Book VII, Chapter 2 of the
nature, its applicability needs nothing further Revised Administrative Code, to wit:
than its bare issuance for it gives no real
consequence more than what the law itself has
already prescribed. When, upon the other hand, Section 3. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file
the administrative rule goes beyond merely with the University of the Philippines Law Center
providing for the means that can facilitate or three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by
render least cumbersome the implementation of it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this
the law but substantially adds to or increases the Code which are not filed within three (3) months
burden of those governed, it behooves the from that date shall not thereafter be the bases of
agency to accord at least to those directly any sanction against any party of persons.
affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to
be duly informed, before that new issuance is Section 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not
given the force and effect of law. otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far
xx as practicable, publish or circulate notices of
Commissioner of Customs vs. Hypermix proposed rules and afford interested parties the
Feeds opportunity to submit their views prior to the
Accordingly, in considering a legislative rule a adoption of any rule.
court is free to make three inquiries: (i) whether
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order bar. Besides, administrative interpretations are at
shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall best advisory for it is the Court that finally
have been published in a newspaper of general determines what the law means. Hence, the
circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first interpretation given by the labor agencies in the
hearing thereon. instant case which went as far as supplementing
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested what is otherwise not stated in the law cannot
cases shall be observed. bind this Court.
xxx xx
VICTORIA MILLING vs. SSS SGMC REALTY CORP. vs. Office of the
There is a distinction between an administrative President
rule or regulation and an administrative Administrative rule or regulation, in order
interpretation of a law whose enforcement is to be valid, must not contradict but conform
entrusted to an administrative body. When an to the provisions of the enabling law.
administrative agency promulgates rules For it is axiomatic that administrative rules derive
and regulations, it "makes" a new law with their validity from the statute that they are
the force and effect of a valid law, while intended to implement. Any rule which is not
when it renders an opinion or gives a consistent with statute itself is null and void.
statement of policy, it merely interprets a xxx
pre-existing law. Rules and regulations Prospective or retroactive operation
when promulgated in pursuance of the CIR VS. AZUCENA
procedure or authority conferred upon the An administrative rule interpretive of a
administrative agency by law, partake of statute, and not declarative of certain
the nature of a statute, and compliance rights and corresponding obligations, is
therewith may be enforced by a penal given retroactive effect as of the date of the
sanction provided in the law. A rule is binding effectivity of the statute.
on the courts so long as the procedure fixed for xxxx
its promulgation is followed and its scope is DADULO vs. CA
within the statutory authority granted by the Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are
legislature, On the other hand, administrative construed to be applicable to actions pending and
interpretation of the law is at best merely undetermined at the time of their passage, and
advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that
what the law means. extent. As a general rule, the retroactive
xxx application of procedural laws cannot be
NFA VS. MASADA Security considered violative of any personal rights
because no vested right may attach to nor arise
The general rule is that construction of a statute therefrom.
by an administrative agency charged with the xxx
task of interpreting or applying the same is SAN MIGUEL VS. INCIONG
entitled to great weight and respect. The Court, The Supplementary Rules and Regulations
however, is not bound to apply said rule where Implementing Presidential Decree 851 is even
such executive interpretation, is clearly more emphatic in declaring that earnings and
erroneous, or when there is no ambiguity in the other remunerations which are not part of the
law interpreted, or when the language of the basic salary shall not be included in the
words used is clear and plain, as in the case at computation of the 13th-month pay.
xx Arbitral decision accord respect and finality
ASTURIAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM by the Court
Considering that the Bureau of Customs is the Exemption to the rule :
office charged with implementing and enforcing 1. on the ground of promissory estoppels
the provisions of our Tariff and Customs Code, the 2. And involving a legal issue and not a
construction placed by it thereon should be given factual finding.
controlling weight. xx
In applying the doctrine or principle of LUPANGCO vs. CA
respect for administrative or practical Quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied
construction, the courts often refer to several to the action, discretion, etc., of public
factors which may be regarded as bases of the administrative officers or bodies required to
principle, as factors leading the courts to give the investigate facts, or ascertain the existence
principle controlling weight in particular of facts, hold hearings, and draw
instances, or as independent rules in themselves. conclusions from them, as a basis for their
These factors are the respect due the official action, and to exercise discretion of
governmental agencies charged with a judicial nature. To expound thereon, quasi-
administration, their competence, expertness, judicial adjudication would mean a determination
experience, and informed judgment and the fact of rights, privileges and duties resulting in a
that they frequently are the drafters of the law decision or order which applies to a specific
they interpret; that the agency is the one on situation . This does not cover rules and
which the legislature must rely to advise it as to regulations of general applicability issued by the
the practical working out of the statute, and administrative body to implement its purely
practical application of the statute presents the administrative policies and functions like
agency with unique opportunity and experiences Resolution No. 105 which was adopted by the
for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or respondent PRC as a measure to preserve the
improvements in the statute. integrity of licensure examinations.
xx JURISDICTION - the competence of an office
CARINO VS. CHR or body to act on a given matter or decide a
The CHR has the power to investigate but not to certain question.
adjudicate alleged human right violation. CHIN vs. Land Bank of the Philippines
The court has no jurisdiction over the subject
Investigate means to examine, inquire, explore. matter of the petition.
Adjudicate to resolve, rule, settle, decide. xxx
xx AZARCON vs. Sandiganbayan
Megaworld Globus Asia vs. DSM The court has no jurisdiction over the person of
Construction Azarcon.
Findings of fact of administrative agencies and xx
quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired DUE PROCESS
expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to SANTIAGO vs. Alikpala
specific matters, are generally accorded not only
respect, but finality when affirmed by the Court of First requirement of procedural due
Appeals. process, namely, the existence of the court
xx or tribunal clothed with judicial, or quasi-
NAPOCOR vs. LEASTO
judicial, power to hear and determine the right to actual or constructive notice of the
matter before it. institution of proceedings which may affect a
There is the express admission in the statement respondents legal rights; (2) a real opportunity
of facts that respondents, as a court-martial, were to be heard personally or with the assistance of
not convened to try petitioner but someone else, counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in
the action taken against petitioner being induced ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a
solely by a desire to avoid the effects of tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and
prescription; it would follow then that the so constituted as to afford a person charged
absence of a competent court or tribunal is most administratively a reasonable guarantee of
marked and undeniable. Such a denial of due honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a
process is therefore fatal to its assumed finding by said tribunal which is supported by
authority to try petitioner. substantial evidence submitted for consideration
xxx during the hearing or contained in the records or
NDC vs. Collector of Customs made known to the parties affected.
Even in admin proceeding due process must In the present case, the various committees
be observed. formed by DECS to hear the administrative
We find this action proper for it really appears charges against private respondents did not
that petitioner Rocha was not given an include a representative of the local or, in its
opportunity to prove that the television set absence, any existing provincial or national
complained of is not a cargo that needs to be teachers organization as required by Section 9
manifested as required by Section 2521 of the of RA 4670. Accordingly, these committees
Tariff and Customs Code. Under said section, in were deemed to have no competent
order that an imported article or merchandise jurisdiction. Thus, all proceedings
may be considered a cargo that should be undertaken by them were necessarily void.
manifested it is first necessary that it be so They could not provide any basis for the
established for the reason that there are other suspension or dismissal of private respondents.
effects that a vessel may carry that are excluded The inclusion of a representative of a teachers
from the requirement of the law, among which organization in these committees was
are the personal effects of the members of the indispensable to ensure an impartial tribunal. It
crew. The fact that the set in question was was this requirement that would have given
claimed by the customs authorities not to be substance and meaning to the right to be
within the exception does not automatically make heard. Indeed, in any proceeding, the
the vessel liable. It is still necessary that the essence of procedural due process is
vessel, its owner or operator, be given a chance embodied in the basic requirement of notice
to show otherwise. This is precisely what and a real opportunity to be heard.
petitioner Rocha has requested in his letter. Not xx
only was he denied this chance, but respondent LUPO vs. Administrative Action Board
collector immediately imposed upon the vessel The requirements of due process in
the huge fine of P5,000.00. This is a denial of administrative proceedings and these are:
the elementary rule of due process. (1) the right to a hearing which includes, the right
xxx to present one's case and submit evidence in
FABELLA vs. CA support thereof;
In administrative proceedings, due process has (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence
been recognized to include the following: (1) the presented;
(3) the decision must have something to support
itself,
(4) the evidence must be substantial,
substantial evidence means such evidence as a
reasonable mind must accept as adequate to
support a conclusion;
(5) the decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must
act on its or his own independent consideration of
the law and facts of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) the board or body should in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reason for the
decision rendered.
xx
MADENILLA vs. CSC
No denial of due process.
"Due process of law implies the right of the
person affected thereby to be present before the
tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the
question of life, liberty, and property in its most
comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony
or otherwise, and to have the right
controverting, by proof, every material fact which
bears on the question of the light in the matter
involved."
The essence of due process is the opportunity to
be heard. The presence of a party is not always
the cornerstone of due process. In the case at
bar, any defect was cured by the filing of a
motion for reconsideration.
xx
KANLAON Construction vs. NLRC
Gen. Rule : Only lawyers are allowed to
appear before the labor arbiter
Exemption:
Non-lawyer member of the organization
Non-lawyer representing himself as party to
the case
Member of the legal aid duly recognized by
IBP or DOJ
and
Engineer Estacio can appear however his
appearance on behalf of Kanlaon required
written proof of authorization. Absent this
authority whatever statement and
declaration made before the arbiter is not
binding to the petitioner.
xx
First LEPANTO vs. CA
Clearly, Circular 1-91 effectively repealed or
superseded Article 82 of E.O. 226 insofar as the
manner and method of enforcing the right to
appeal from decisions of the BOI are concerned.
Appeals from decisions of the BOI, which by
statute was previously allowed to be filed directly
with the Supreme Court, should now be brought
to the Court of Appeals.
xx
RES JUDICATA
Judge Basilla vs. Becamon
Applying the principle of res judicata or bar by
prior judgment, the present administrative case
becomes dismissible.
of The Court held that applied the principle of res
judicata or bar by prior judgment. Under the said
doctrine, a matter that has been adjudicated by a
court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed
to have been finally and conclusively settled if it
arises in any subsequent litigation between the
same parties and for the same cause. It provides
that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to
the rights of the parties and their privies; and
constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions
involving the same claim, demand, or cause of
action. Res judicata is based on the ground that
the party to be affected, or some other with
whom he is in privity, has litigated the same
matter in the former action in a court of
competent jurisdiction, and should not be
permitted to litigate it again. This principle frees
the parties from undergoing all over again the required that there must always be identity
rigors of unnecessary suits and repetitious trials. of parties in the first and second cases.
At the same time, it prevents the clogging of
court dockets. Equally important, res judicata For res judicata to apply, the following
stabilizes rights and promotes the rule of law. requisites must be present:
xxxx (a) the former judgment or order must
NHA vs. Almeida be final;
In fine, it should be remembered that quasi- (b) it must be a judgment or order on
judicial powers will always be subject to true the merits, that is, it was rendered after a
judicial powerthat which is held by the courts. consideration of the evidence or
Quasi-judicial power is defined as that power of stipulations submitted by the parties at the
adjudication of an administrative agency for the trial of the case;
"formulation of a final order." This function (c) it must have been rendered by a
applies to the actions, discretion and similar acts court having jurisdiction over the subject
of public administrative officers or bodies who are matter and the parties; and
required to investigate facts, or ascertain the (d) there must be, between the first
existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw and second actions, identity of parties, of
conclusions from them, as a basis for their official subject matter, and of cause of action; this
action and to exercise discretion of a judicial requisite is satisfied if the two actions are
nature. However, administrative agencies are not substantially between the same parties.
considered courts, in their strict sense. The xxx
doctrine of separation of powers reposes the SEC vs. INTERPORT SERVICES
three great powers into its three (3) branches SEC retains jurisdiction to investigate
the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Section 53 of the Securities Regulations Code
Each department is co-equal and coordinate, and clearly provides that criminal complaints for
supreme in its own sphere. Accordingly, the violations of rules and regulations enforced or
executive department may not, by its own fiat, administered by the SEC shall be referred to the
impose the judgment of one of its agencies, upon Department of Justice (DOJ) for preliminary
the judiciary. Indeed, under the expanded investigation, while the SEC nevertheless retains
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is limited investigatory powers. Additionally, the
empowered to "determine whether or not there SEC may still impose the appropriate
has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to administrative sanctions under Section 54 of the
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any aforementioned law.
branch or instrumentality of the Government." xxxx
xxx VIGAN ELECTRIC CO. vs. Public Service
Abelita vs. Doria Commission
While the present case and the administrative Partakes of the nature of a quasi-judicial
case are based on the same essential facts and function and that having been issued
circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata will without previous notice and hearing said
not apply. order is clearly violative of the due process
There is no identity of causes of action in the clause, and, hence, null and void.
cases. While identity of causes of action is not
required in the application of res judicata in the QJ notice and hearing requirement.
concept of conclusiveness of judgment, it is xxxx
SEC vs. GMA Network, Inc. determine whether the regulation issued by
the SEC is reasonable and within the
Rate-fixing is a legislative function which bounds of its rate-fixing authority and to
concededly has been delegated to the SEC by strike it down when it arbitrarily infringes
R.A. No. 3531 and other pertinent laws. The due on a persons right to property.
process clause, however, permits the courts to