IV. QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADJUDICATORY FUNCTION Flashcards
When is an administrative agency deemed to be exercising judicial functions?
An agency is said to be exercising judicial function where it has the power to DETERMINE what the LAW is and what the legal RIGHTS of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and ADJUDICATE upon the rights of the parties. [Civil Service Commission v. Magoyag].
Define “quasi-judicial function”
Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc. of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. [Civil Service Commission v. Magoyag].
Distinguish fact-finding from adjudication
Fact-finding is not adjudication, and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or resolved authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. [Louis Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, citing Hon. Isidro Carino v. CHR
Distinguish quasi-judicial function from quasi-legislative or rule-making power
- Quasi-judicial action involves ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITIES as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed to exist, while quasi-legislation looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied prospectively.
- Adjudication applies to NAMED PERSONS OR SPECIFIC SITUATIONS while the legislation lays down general regulations that apply to classes of persons or situations.
Requiisites for a valid exercise of quasi-judicial power
- Jurisdiction
2. Due Process
When is an exercise of quasi-judicial function deemed in excess of jurisdiction and what is its effect?
General Rule: A tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions acts without jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred to it by law to hear and decide cases.
• Jurisdiction to hear must be explicit or by necessary implication, conferred through the terms of the enabling statute.
• Effect of administrative acts outside jurisdiction—Void.
When is Rule 43 of the ROC applied to the acts of administrative agencies?
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court under which the respondent filed his petition before the CA applies to awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. [CSC v. Magoyag]
Subpoena Power of Administrative Agencies
Administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or not adjudication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence, not to prove a pending charge. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body, it, too may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law.
A subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is:
- within the authority of the agency;
- the demand is not too indefinite; and
- the information is reasonably relevant [Evangelista v. Jarencio, G.R. No. L- 29274, (1975)].
Contempt Power of Administrative Agencies
Contempt Power
General Rule: Exercised through the order and assistance of RTC.
Exception: When the law gives agency contempt power.
The exercise of this power [to punish for contempt] has always been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of courts. Its exercise by administrative bodies has been invariably limited to making effective the power to elicit testimony, and the exercise of that power by an administrative body in furtherance of its administrative function has been held invalid [Guevara v. Comelec].
Requirements:
1. An enabling statute expressly gives the agency the power to cite for contempt; and
2. The agency shall exercise such power in relation to its quasi-judicial, not ministerial function.
Must there be an actual case/controversy for administrative agencies to enforce subpoenas and conduct investigations?
NO
It is not necessary, as in the case of a warrant, that a specific charge or complaint of violation of law be pending or that the order be made pursuant to one. It is enough that the investigation be for a LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED PURPOSE.
The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent upon a case or controversy in order to get evidence but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.
Limits to the subpoena power of administrative agencies
ARBITRARINESS
Arbitrary as to trench upon private rights of petitioners entitled to priority. [Catura v. CIR]
Can judges be held in contempt by administrative agencies?
NO
The competence of the NLRC to “hold any person in contempt for refusal to comply” certainly cannot extend to a judge of the court of first instance. The CFI judge properly reserved his resolution in view of the intricacies of the legal questions raised and required hearing the arguments on the propriety of issuing the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for. [Tolentino v. Inciong]
Power of administrative agencies to issue a search warrant or warrant of arrest
General Rule: Only judges may issue. Under the express terms of our Constitution, it is doubtful whether the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than the judge if the purpose is merely to determine the existence of a probable cause, leading to an administrative investigation. [Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, decided under the 1935 Constitution. Note that the 1987 and 1935 Constitutions are the same in limiting the issuance of warrants of arrest to a judge.]
The exception is in cases of DEPORTATION of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the PRESIDENT or the COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation [Salazar v. Achacoso].
Board of Commissioners v. De La Rosa reiterates the rule that for a warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration to be valid, it must be for the sole purpose of executing a FINAL ORDER of deportation. A warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration for purposes of investigation only is null and void for being unconstitutional.
Note: In Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago, there was no final order of deportation. The executive officials were the ones who made a finding of probable cause, not the judge. As such, this case seems to carve out another exception (in addition to warrant of arrest to enforce an order of deportation) – upon showing of probable cause and the filing of a charge.
Two ways of deporting
- Commission of Immigration by virtue of the Immigration Law -> Delegated by law
- President pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code (no grounds for deportation needed, has sole discretion under international law) -> Cannot be delegated
Administrative searches
Warrantless administrative searches are significant intrusions upon interests protected by the 4th Amendment (right to privacy), and will be subjected to scrutiny by the Court, particularly as to reasonableness and whether there is emergency or not. (Camara v Municipal Court)
