Administrative Law

Panic Notes
_____________________________
Preface: Transcribed from the authors notes
and it is best used during the last morning
review or moments prior to the examinations.
Read first the cases, and then if you do not feel
like you have read much already, try to use this.
GOOD LUCK!!! The author.
Case No. 1 BME v. Alfonso: Courts cannot
inquire with regards to the findings of fact done
by the administrative tribunals; provided it is
exercised within the limits set by the
constitution or law. Unless tainted with grave
abuse of discretion, or if the findings were not
supported by substantial evidence.
Case No. 2 San Luis v. CA: Administrative res
judicata extends to judicial agencies provided
they are acting within the authority and not
tainted with grave abuse of discretion and thus
precluding courts from re-opening and taking
cognizance of a case, especially if it is settled
with finality and authoritatively by the admin.
tribunals.
Case No. 3 U.P v. Catungal: One who seeks
equity must do so with clean hands, unless the
petitioner or party exhausts all available
remedies especially if expressly provided by
law, resort to courts are not allowed;
immediate recourse to courts will render a
partys cause of action premature and hence
dismissible.
Case No. 4 Macailing v. Andrada: The doctrine
of primary jurisdiction precludes courts from
trying the case especially if the controversies
involved are under the jurisdiction of the
administrative agency, in case of silence as to
judicial resort, it is automatically provided even
in
the
absence
of
such
remedy.

Note: An action for certiorari, prohibition and

mandamus are applicable when there are no
available plain, speedy and adequate remedies
under the proceedings (APSA)
Case No. 5: Quintos v. National Stud Farm
Doctrine of exhaustion is the necessary
consequence of the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction; failure to exhaust such remedy
could affect ones cause of action; and hence
resulting to a premature action which is
dismissible upon a motion to dismiss.
Primary jurisdiction v. Exhaustion of remedies
Primary Jurisdiction
Presupposes a
situation where the
controversial issue is
within the cognizance
of both the regular
courts and the
administrative agency;
and the latter is given
the preference to try
the case.

Exhaustion of
Remedies
Presupposes a
situation where the
jurisdiction is vested in
the administrative
tribunal concerned
Note: It is to be
exhausted in the case
where the
administrative agency
concerned is
exercising quasijudicial power, if not
such doctrine does not
come into play.
(Albano, Political
Reviewer, 2008 ed.)

Administrative Law
Panic Notes
_____________________________
Effect of the doctrines
Exhaustion
The partys cause of
action is premature
until and unless he
avails all the remedies
available to him under
the administrative
agency concerned

Primary Jurisdiction
The proceedings in the
regular courts of
justice are merely
suspended; until and
unless the
proceedings have
attained their finality
in the administrative
agency concerned
(Doctrine of Finality of
Administrative cases)

Case No. 6: Obanana v. Boncaros: Doctrine of

exhaustion of remedies does not apply when
the subject matter of the action is a PRIVATE
LAND; the subsequent acquisition of a patent
application and a certification of title will
terminate the public status of the land/domain
under consideration
Case No. 7: Collector of Internal Revenue v.
Azanar: Injunction cannot be used as a means
of preventing or restraining the collection of
taxes; prescriptive periods in filing income tax
returns are not anymore within the province of
the administrative tribunals but by the courts.
Case No. 8: Baranggay Dasmarinas v. Creative
Play Center: Procedural rules should not be
belittled or ignored at will; it is true that
procedural rules can be liberally applied in a
case but these rules should not be disregarded;
such rules can only be liberally applied in the
most compelling of reasons.
Case No. 9: Laganapan v. Asedillo: Exhaustion of
remedies can be disregarded if there is a

violation of a partys right to due process; same

as in the case of (Roxas and Co. v. CA)
Case No. 10: Mapa v. Sandiganbayan: MOAs
regarding immunities of a witness is not
automatically removed upon the failure of such
witness to testify in the proceedings, especially
if it cannot be attributed to their own fault or
negligence; clearly they were prevented by the
American prosecutors to testify, upon the belief
that their evidence (prosecutors) are adequate
enough to hold former Pres. Marcos and his
spouse guilty of the charges filed against them.
Case No. 11: Diaz v. Secretary of Finance: Toll
fees are not subject to tax, for the reason that
they do not fall within the definition of
government exaction; the parties has no locus
standi over the issue since they are not privy to
the contract executed by the parties and the
government in the toll-operations. Since, there
is no law that provides for the taxing of these
toll fees, then it is right and just to exclude
them from the application of tax laws.
Case No. 12: Roxas and Co. v. CA: Exhaustion of
remedies is not applicable when there is a
violation of a partys right to due process, since
under the expropriation proceedings the state
is required to give a just compensation to the
party aggrieved and in the absence of such will
invalidate the proceedings in toto.
Case No. 13: PCGG v. Sandiganbayan: Litis
pendentia is not applicable when there is a
disparity to the cause(s) of action(s) of the
parties to the case, much more res judicata
cannot be applied since the case is only
remanded to the Sandiganbayan, which means
that there is no finality yet which is a condition

Administrative Law
Panic Notes
_____________________________
sine qua non for res judicata or bar by prior
judgment to apply.
Res Judicata
Bar by prior judgment,
presupposes that the
tribunal attained
finality over the case.
And the same case
possessing the same
matters are re-opened

Litis Pendentia
Proceedings are
instituted
simultaneously having
identical parties, rights
or causes of actions
and reliefs.

Case No. 14: Board of Immigration v. Domingo:

Courts cannot take cognizance over a case and
substitute their judgment to that rendered by
the administrative tribunals, unless if such
finding of facts is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion or if not supported by substantial
evidence.
Case No. 15: U.P Board of Regents v. Rasul:
Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is not
applicable if a party would suffer grave
irreparable injury because of his subsequent
termination and he is being replaced to his
position, much more that the doctrine will not
come into play if the remedy available to a
party is inadequate enough or if a party would
suffer grave injustice.
Case No. 16: Ignacio v. CA: Mere error
judgments per se cannot be equated to an error
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The facts pertaining to an error of
jurisdiction as warranted by a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 must be indicated with
certainty, and it only applies to questions as to
error of jurisdiction.

Case No. 17: OCA v. Lopez: A Criminal

proceeding is a separate and distinct action as
differentiated
from
an
administrative
proceedings. Especially with regards to the
quantum of proof required. The administrative
proceedings require substantial evidence or
such evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Note: Dismissal of the Criminal proceedings
does not necessarily carries with it the
administrative proceedings for they are
separate.
Case No. 18: FFW v. Inciong: Certiorari cannot
be availed of if a party has an available remedy
under the proceedings, in which case the
remedy of a party is an appeal to the President
and not to the courts of regular justice.
Note: Certiorari is not to be availed of in cases
where a partys right to appeal has been lost,
especially if it is attributable to his own fault or
negligence; and cannot be made as a
substitution to a lost appeal.
Case No. 19: E.R.B v. CA: Fact findings of the
agencies should not be disturbed unless tainted
with grave abuse of discretion or if the findings
are not supported by substantial evidence. The
CA erred in rendering 2 conflicting decisions and
without taking due regards to the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction.
Case No. 20: Gabrito v. CA: Actions to
determine the possession of a land is to the
courts of regular justice exclusively, under the
summary proceedings the recovery of
possession is available to the courts even

Administrative Law
Panic Notes
_____________________________
though there is an action pending in the
administrative tribunals.

replevin to the adverse party; since the partys

cause of action for such is premature.

Case No. 21: Miriam College v. CA: The power

to investigate carries with it the prerogative to
suspend or expel students as provided by the
academic freedom clause granted by the
Constitution. With regards to the issue of
jurisdiction: The Petitioner has the jurisdiction
to try as an incident of the exercise of such
tribunal of the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction.

Note: An action for replevin is a provisional

remedy to recover the possession of a personal
property. (Rule 59, Revised Rules of Court)

Case No. 22: I.E.I v. CA: Exhaustion of remedies

is proper because of the rationale behind it, and
such failure to exhaust such remedies is fatal to
ones cause of action.
Note: The rationale behind such remedies: (1)
To allow the tribunal to correct every error
committed by its subordinate and to do justice
within its bounds; (2) the policy of noninterference or the doctrine of separation of
powers enjoining the judiciary to not interfere
with the decisions rendered by the agency
concerned unless thered be compelling
reasons; (3) To avoid the unnecessary clogging
of court dockets; (4) Since an action for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are
applicable when there are no available plain,
speedy and adequate remedies under the
course of the proceedings, it is right to avail
such extraordinary in their absence. (Albano et
al, Political Law Reviewer, 2008 ed.)
Case No. 23: Paat v. CA: A suit for replevin will
not lie especially if a party failed to exhaust all
available remedies under the proceedings. The
proper action should be a dismissal of the case
and it is an error for the court that took
cognizance and hence ordering the writ of

Case No. 24: Anillo v. COSLAP: The very essence

of due process is the opportunity to be heard.
A partys assertion that his right to such was
violated cannot be accepted if such allegation
was due to his own fault, by not exercising his
right he definitely is in bad faith; and hence the
defense to such is already precluded by virtue
of estoppels by laches.
Case No. 25: Lumiqued v. Exevea: The right to
counsel is not a primordial and synonymous
right as contrasted to the right to due process.
Hence, the very essence of due process is the
right and opportunity to be heard and not to
appear with the assistance of a counsel. The
right to counsel is only required if the
proceedings taken is a criminal one. (Const.
(1987), Article III, Sec. 12 & 14)
Nothing follows