5. Administrative Procedure

Question 1

Are technical rules of procedure applied strictly to administrative cases?

Answer 1

No. In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not
strictly applied; administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due
process in its strict judicial sense [Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. NLRC].

Question 2

How are administrative rules of procedure construed?

Answer 2

Administrative rules of procedure are construed liberally to promote their objective
and to assist parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of
their respective claims and defenses. As a general rule, a finding of guilt in
administrative cases, if supported by substantial evidence will be sustained by this
Court [Civil Service Commission v. Colanggo].

Question 3

Is due process required in administrative proceedings?

Answer 3

Yes. While administrative agencies are free from the rigidity of certain procedural
requirements, they cannot entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and
essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an
administrative character [Ang Tibay v. CIR].

Question 4

What is the effect of an administrative decision rendered without due process?

Answer 4

A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at
any time directly or collaterally by means of a separate action or proceeding where
it is invoked [Garcia v. Molina].

Question 5

Is a trial-type proceeding required to satisfy due process in administrative proceedings?

Answer 5

No. Due process as a constitutional precept does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. [NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board v. Bernabe]

Question 6

What are the cardinal primary rights under Ang Tibay?

Answer 6

Cardinal Primary Rights [Ang Tibay v CIR]

1. Right to a hearing (includes the right of a party to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof)
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. Decision must be supported by evidence.
4. Evidence must be substantial.
5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
6. The judge must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy (not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision)
7. Decision must be rendered in such a manner as to let the parties know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered

Question 7

Is the presence of a party at a trial always required in administrative proceedings?

Answer 7

No. Presence of a party at a trial is not always of the essence of due process. Really, all that the law requires is that the parties be given notice of the trial, an opportunity to be heard. [Asprec v. Itchon]

Question 8

May a party-litigant be deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the adverse party?

Answer 8

No. The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. [Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. CIR]

Question 9

May the reviewing officer be the person who rendered the decision by the lower tribunal?

Answer 9

No. In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. [Zambales Chromite Mining Co. v. CA]

Question 10

Is a party litigant entitled to the committee report of the investigatory committee?

Answer 10

No. If there is an investigating committee appointed by the disciplinary authority, that committee report cannot be mandated to furnish a copy thereof. A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him. [Pefianco v. Moral]

Question 11

Does the right to cross-examination necessarily require an actual cross examination?

Answer 11

No. While the right to cross-examine is a vital element of procedural due process, the right does not necessarily require an actual cross examination but merely an opportunity to exercise this right if desired by the party entitled to it. [Ganapao v. CSC]

Question 12

What is substantial evidence?

Answer 12

• The amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion [Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court]
  *

Question 13

Is the right to counsel an imperative?

Answer 13

The right to counsel is not imperative because administrative investigations are themselves inquiries conducted only to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.

Question 14

What is the Matthews Test?

Answer 14

(Mathews Test) The identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.

Question 15

When is notice and hearing required?

Answer 15

When required:

1. When the law specifically requires it; or
2. When it affects a person’s status and liberty

Question 16

When is notice and hearing not required?

Answer 16

1. When there is urgent need for immediate action [Secretary of Justice v.
   Lantion];
2. When there is tentativeness of administrative action, i.e. the person
   affected is not precluded from enjoying the right to notice and hearing at a
   later time without prejudice to them;
3. When notice and hearing have been proferred, but the right to exercise
   them have not been claimed;
4. Discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact
   [Suntay v. People];
5. If it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse;
6. When it involves rules to govern future conduct of persons or enterprises,
   unless law provides otherwise; or
7. In the valid exercise of police power.

Question 17

Under the Administrative Code, when is notice and hearing required?

Answer 17

Required Notice and Hearing under the Admin. Code

● Contested cases [Sec. 11, Chapter 3, Book VII, Admin. Code]
● Insofar as practicable, to certain licensing procedures, involving grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a license; i.e. when the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice and hearing [Sec. 17(1), Chapter 3, Book VII, Admin. Code]
● All licensing procedures, when a license is withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled [Sec. 17(2), Chapter 3, Book VII, Admin. Code]

Question 18

What is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?

Answer 18

Courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact [Guy v. Ignacio].

Question 19

What is the exception to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?

Answer 19

In immigration cases, the exception to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is allowed when the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim for citizenship, so substantial that there is reasonable ground to believe that the claim is correct. [Go v. Ramos

Question 20

Does the CHR have jurisdiction to try cases?

Answer 20

No. In Simon v. CHR and in Carino v. CHR, it was ruled that “the Commission on Human Rights was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter.” Therefore, the Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of the respondents.

Question 21

Does the HLURB have the right to hear and try cases?

Answer 21

Yes. The jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate trade is broad enough to include jurisdiction over complaints for specific performance of the sale, or annulment of the mortgage, of a condominium unit, with damages.

Question 22

Relationship between jurisdiction and the pleadings?

Answer 22

Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein — a matter resolved only after and as a result of the trial.

Question 23

When multiple administrative bodies have concurrent jurisdiction, which body should take cognizance of the case?

Answer 23

Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. [Pat-og Sr. v. CSC]

Question 24

May a condemnatory decision in a criminal case serve as the basis for an administrative decision?

Answer 24

No. A condemnatory decision in a criminal case, even if final, by itself alone, cannot serve as basis for a decision in administrative case involving the same facts. Matters that are material in the administrative case are not necessarily relevant in the criminal case.

Question 25

What is substantial evidence?

Answer 25

Substantial evidence – relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion

Question 26

How are administrative rules of procedure construed?

Answer 26

Administrative rules of procedure are construed liberally to promote their objective and to assist parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses As a general rule, a finding of guilt in administrative cases, if supported by substantial evidence will be sustained by this Court [CSC v. Colanggo].