V. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Question 1

Define “Administrative Procedure”

Answer 1

A broad term which encompasses procedure in RULE-MAKING (e.g., publication, effectivity, fixing of rates, public participation, licensing, etc.)

Also encompasses procedure in adjudication (e.g., rules on contested cases, notice, hearing, cross-exam, MFR, etc.)

Question 2

Rules of Procedure in Administrative Procedures

Answer 2

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].

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

Administrative Due Process

Answer 3

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].

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 4

Effect of Decisions 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

Cardinal Primary Rights (Ang Tibay v. CIR)

Answer 5

“Hearing Considers Support, Substance Presents Independent Issues”

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.

Quantum of Proof: Substantial Evidence

a. The amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion [Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court]
b. An administrative proceeding is different from a criminal case and may proceed independently thereof. The quantum of proof in the latter is different, such that the verdict in one need not necessarily be the same as in the other. A finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case [Miralles v. Go].
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 6

Should the defendant be afforded a right to cross-examine witnesses in administrative proceedings?

Answer 6

YES

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.

Question 7

Can a reviewing officer be the same person as the maker of a decision under review?

Answer 7

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. The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case. [Zambales Chromite Mining Co. v. CA]

Question 8

Is the defendant entitled to a copy of the investigation report?

Answer 8

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 9

Examples of due process in administrative proceedings

Answer 9

In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to include the following:

(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights;
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights;
(3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and
(4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.

Question 10

Right to Seek Reconsideration vis a vis due process

Answer 10

Right to Seek Reconsideration which is availed of is incompatible with a claim of denial of due process.
• Vivo v. PAGCOR: any procedural defect in the proceedings taken against the government employee therein was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration and by his appealing the adverse result to the administrative agency (in that case, CSC).

Question 11

Matthews Test in Due Process

Answer 11

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 12

When are notice and hearing required?

Answer 12

GR: Not required

When required:

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

Question 13

Examples of when notice and hearing are NOT required

Answer 13

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 14

Required Notice and Hearing Under the Admin Code

Answer 14

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 15

Exceptions to required notice and hearing under the Admin Code

Answer 15

Exceptions
Notice and hearing not required in cases of
1. Willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and regulations or
2. When public security, health, or safety require otherwise [Sec. 17(2), Chapter 3, Book. VII, Admin. Code].

Question 16

Discretion exercised by an officer vis a vis due process

Answer 16

Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. When discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder, hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport; lack of such hearing does not violate the due process of law clause of the Constitution; and the exercise of the discretion vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical and capricious because of the absence of such hearing.

Question 17

How are establishments affected by an ex parte cease and desist order afforded due process?

Answer 17

Where the establishment affected by an ex parte cease and desist order contests the correctness of the prima facie findings of the Board, the Board must hold a public hearing where such establishment would have an opportunity to controvert the basis of such ex parte order. That such an opportunity is subsequently available is really all that is required by the due process clause of the Constitution in situations like that we have here. [Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA]

Question 18

Promulgation

Answer 18

Promulgation is the delivery of the decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication. [Neria v. Commissioner of Immigration]

Question 19

Operative date of promulgation

Answer 19

Jurisprudence provides that the operative date of promulgation is the date when the resolution was voted and resolved by the Board. [Sichangco v. The Board of Commissioners of Immigratio]

Question 20

Jurisdiction of administrative agencies

Answer 20

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].

Jurisdiction is conferred by law
• The enabling law must be carefully examined.
• Reason: It can only act if it is authorized by law.
• Split jurisdiction not favored

Question 21

President’s power of deportation

Answer 21

The State has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens. That power may be exercise by the Chief Executive “when he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation. When the Chief Executive finds that there are aliens whose continued in the country is injurious to the public interest he may, even in the absence of express law, deport them.

SEC. 69. Deportation of subject of foreign power. — A subject of a foreign power residing in the Philippine Islands shall not be deported expelled or excluded from said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the Governor-General except upon prior investigaton, conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon which such action is contemplated. In such case the person concerned shall he informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than three days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be heard by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross-examine the opposing witnesses.

Question 22

Exception to doctrine of primary jurisdiction

Answer 22

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction of petitioners Board of Commissioners over deportation proceedings is, therefore, not without exception. Judicial intervention, however, should be granted in cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct. The present case, falls within the exception considering that proof of their Philippine citizenship had been adduced, such as, the identification numbers issued by the Bureau of Immigration confirming their Philippine citizenship, they have duly exercised and enjoyed all the rights and privileges exclusively accorded to Filipino citizens, i.e., their Philippine passports issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs. [Guy v. Ignacio]

It is beyond cavil that the Bureau of Immigration has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and in the process, determine also their citizenship. And a mere claim of citizenship cannot operate to divest the Board of Commissioners of its jurisdiction in deportation proceedings. However, the rule enunciated above admits of an exception, at least insofar as deportation proceedings are concerned.
When the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings.

Question 23

Who has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases?

Answer 23

The Collector of Customs

The exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases vested in the Collector of Customs precludes a Court of First Instance from assuming cognizance over such cases. The Collector of Customs when sitting in forfeiture proceedings constitutes a tribunal expressly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter of such proceedings without any interference from the Court of First Instance. [De la Fuente v. De Veyra]

Question 24

Is a franchise issued by Congress required for a public utility to operate?

Answer 24

NO

Franchise issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. In many instances, Congress has seen it fit to delegate this function to government agencies, specialized particularly in their respective areas of public service. [PAL v. CAB]

Question 25

Does the CDA have quasi-judicial authority over disputes?

Answer 25

NO
A review of the records of the deliberations by both chambers of Congress prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 6939 provides a definitive answer that the CDA is not vested with quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate cooperative disputes. (CDA v.. DOLEFIL_

Question 26

Who has jurisdiction over irregular or illegal disbursements within government agencies?

Answer 26

COA

Question 27

Can lack of jurisdiction be cured by parties’ participation in the proceedings?

Answer 27

NO

In this case, the COSLAP did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint filed by Gatdula. The lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the parties’ participation in the proceedings before the COSLAP.

Estoppel generally does not confer jurisdiction over a cause of action to a tribunal where none, by law, exists.[Machado v. Gatdula]

Question 28

Rule for concurrent jurisdiction in administrative cases

Answer 28

Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. (Pat-og Sr. v. CSC)

Question 29

Extension of COA jurisdiction to non-GOCCs

Answer 29

Under Section 2 (1) of Article IX-D of the Constitution, the COA was vested with the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit and settle the accounts of non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to the COA for audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.

Complementing the said constitutional power of COA is Section 29 (1) of the Audit Code, which grants the COA visitorial authority over those non-governmental entities (a) “subsidized by the government,” (b) “required to pay levy or government share,” (c) have “received counterpart funds from the government,” and (d) “partly funded by donations through the government.

Question 30

Administrative and judicial proceedings arising from the same facts

Answer 30

Although criminal and administrative proceedings are entirely different and distinct from each other, the former is not legally inconsistent with the latter and vice versa. The prosecution for the former does not entail a waiver of the action due for the latter. [Galang v. CA]
Findings in judicial proceedings do not automatically bind administrative proceedings arising from the same facts, especially where the issues in the criminal case and the administrative case are distinct and different from one another. [Co San v. Director of Patents]
The settled rule is that criminal and administrative cases are separate and distinct from each other. In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed whereas in administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required. Verily, administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings. [Acuzar v. Jorolan]

Question 31

Order of release in a criminal action through bail vis a vis detention under a warrant of arrest of deportation

Answer 31

An order of release in the criminal action upon filing of a bail bond would not affect the legality of the detention under a warrant of arrest of deportation. Similarly, the acquittal in the criminal action would not bar his deportation by the Commissioner. In this case, the Commissioner may have to postpone the actual exclusion of Tee Hook Chun until he has served his sentence, and if the sentence should order deportation, then the Commissioner shall deport him. If the sentence did not include deportation, the Commissioner can legally order his exclusion.

Question 32

Acquital in a criminal case vis a vis administrative liability

Answer 32

Daleon Doctrine: While an acquitted accused may in appropriate cases claim payment of back salaries during the period of his suspension, or reinstatement in the case of his dismissal, his relief lies not in the same criminal case wherein he is acquitted but in the proper administrative or civil action prescribed by law.
The reason for the rule is that generally acquittal in the criminal case does not carry with it relief from administrative liability. The administrative case may generally proceed against a respondent independently of a criminal action for the same act or omission and requires only a preponderance of evidence to establish administrative guilt as against proof beyond reasonable doubt of the criminal charge.

Question 33

Substantial evidence

Answer 33

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

Ocular inspections are only meant to help the court in clearing doubt and in reaching a conclusion, it is not the main trial, nor should it exclude the presentation of other evidence which the parties may deem necessary to establish their case. It is merely an auxiliary remedy the law affords the parties or the court to reach an enlightened determination of the case. [Philippine Movie Pictures Workers’ Association v. Premier Productions]

Question 34

Reviewing of decisions and examination of proof

Answer 34

In reviewing the decision of the Public Service Commission, the Supreme Court is not required to examine the proof de novo and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of evidence really justifies the decision, since its only function is to determine whether or not there is evidence before the Commission upon which its decision might reasonably be based. This Court will not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission on questions of fact and will not interfere in the latter’s decision unless it clearly appears that there is no evidence to support.
[Rizal Light Co. v. Municipality of Rizal]