North Eastern Mindanao State University
College of Law
Generic Course Syllabus, Effective S.Y. 2022-2023
Course Code: JD303
Course Title: Administrative Law and Law on Public Officers
Pre-requisite: Constitutional Law I
No. of Units: 2
Course Description: This course will survey the interplay of key laws that deal with public officer and
civil service covering the basic principle and doctrines governing administrative agencies, and the
essential standards and rules applicable to public servants.
Course Objective/s:
After completing this course, the student is expected to:
1. Demonstrate understanding of the provisions in the Administrative Code of the Philippines and
other related books;
2. Be equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary for handling administrative issues and
cases; and
3. Demonstrate proficiency in laws and jurisprudence relative to administrative cases.
Course Outline:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAWS
Class Date Topics
I General
(Soriano vs. MTRCB, G.R. No. 165785, April 29, 2009)
1.1 Administrative Framework
(Leveriza vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-66614, January 25, 1988;
In re: Rodolfo U. Manzano, A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC, October 5,
1988;
Iron and Steel Authority vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102976,
October 25, 1995;
Luzon Development Bank vs. Association of Luzon Development
Bank Employees, 249 SCRA 162 (1995))
1.2 Creation and abolition of agencies
(Fernandez vs. Sto. Tomas, 59 SCAD 488;
Eugenio v. CSC, 21 SCRA 145 (1993))
II Powers of Administrative Agencies
2.1 General References
(Solid Homes, Inc. v Payawal, 177 SCRA 72;
Matienzo vs. Abeller, 162 SCRA 1)
2.2 Express and Implied
(Sarcos vs. Castillo, 26 SCRA 853;
Villegas vs. Subido, 30 SCRA 498;
Radio Communications vs. Santiago, 58 SCRA 493 (1974);
Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan, 79 SCAD 954 (1997);
Taule vs. Santos, 200 SCRA 512 (1991);
Pimentel vs. COMELEC, 101 SCRA 769 (1994);
GSIS vs. CSC, 202 SCRA 799)
2.3 Ministerial and Discretionary
(Carino vs. Capulong, 41 SCAD 775 (1993);
Mateo vs. CA, 196 SCRA 280;
Symaco vs. Aquino, 106 Phil 1130 (1960);
MERALCO Securities Corp. vs. Savellano, 117 SCRA 804 (1982);
Binamira vs. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 154 (1990);
Republic vs. Capulong, 199 SCRA 134 (1991))
2.4 Mandatory and Permissive
(Brehn vs. Republic, 9 SCRA 172 (1963);
Sarina vs. CFI of Bukidnon, 24 SCRA 715 (1968);
Prov. Treasurer of Negros Occidental vs. Azcona, 115 Phil 588)
2.5 Errors in Exercise of Powers
(Republic vs. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., 32 SCRA 211 1970);
Dir. of Bureau of Telecommunications vs. Aligaen, 33, SCRA 368
(1970);
Leveriza vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-66614, January 25, 1988)
2.6 Estoppel
(Shauf vs. CA, 191 SCRA 713 (1970);
Tatad vs. Garcia, 60 SCAD 480 (1995))
2.7 Presumption of Regularity
(Blue Bar Coconut Phil vs. Tantuico, 163, SCRA 716 (1988);
Sanders vs. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 716)
III Power of Control, Supervision and Investigation
3.1 Executive Power of the President
(Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989))
3.2 Control, Supervision and Review
(Carpio vs. Executive Secretary, 206 SCRA 290 (1992);
Pelaez vs. Auditor-General, 15 SCRA 569 (1965);
Tecson vs. Salas, 34 SCRA 275 (1970);
Frache vs. Hernandezm 109 Phil 782 (1960);
Noblejas vs. Salas, 67 SCRA 47 (1975);
Malayan Integrated Industries Corp vs. CA, 213 SCRA 640 (1992);
Extensive Ent. Corp. vs. Sarbro & Co., Inc. 17 SCRA 41 (1966);
Larin vs. Executive Secretary, 88 SCAD 212 (1997);
Camarines Norte Electric Coop vs. Torres, 91 SCAD 995;
United Christian Missionary Society vs. Social Security Commission,
30 SCRA 983 (1969);
Villaluz vs. Zaldivar, 15 SCRA 710 (1965);
Fortich vs. Corona, 289 SCRA 624 (1998);
Taule vs. Santos, 200 SCRA 512 (1991);
Sichangco vs. Board Commissioners of Immigration, 94 SCRA 61
(1979);
Philippine Gamefoul Commission vs. IAC, 46 SCRA 294 (1986))
3.3 Power of Investigation
(Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160 (2000);
Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99 (1975);
Larin vs. Executive Secretary, 88 SCAD 212 (1997);
Pefianco vs. Moral, 118 SCAD 391 (2000);
Carino vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483 (1991);
Concerned Officials of MWSS vs. Vasquez, 58 SCRA 409;
Deloso vs. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545 (1990))
IV Quasi-Legislative Power
4.1 Legislative Power in General, Delegation to the President (Occena
vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 775 (1980); Vera vs. Avelina, 77 Phil 192;
US vs. Barrias, 11 Phil 327, 329-330 (1908); Pesigan vs. Angeles,
G.R. No. 64279, April 30, 1984; First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. CA,
231 SCRA 30 (1994); First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. CA, 237 SCRA
519 (1994); CIR vs. Guerrero, 21 SCRA 413 (1967); JM Tuazon & Co.
vs. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970); Maceda vs.
Macaraig Jr., 197 SCRA 771 (1991); People vs. Maceren, 79 SCRA
450 (1977); Prentis vs. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 US 210; Smart
Communications, INC. vs. National Telecommunications, G.R. No.
151908, August 12, 2003; Phil.Communications Satellite Corp. vs.
Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218 (1989); The Central Bank of the Phils. vs.
Claribel, 44 SCRA 307 (1972); LGC of 1991, Administrative Code of
the Philippines)
4.1.1 Notice and Hearing
4.1.2 Kinds of Rule-Making Power
4.2 Delegation of Legislative Powers (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs.
POEA, 166 SCRA 533 (1988); Rabor vs. CSC, 61 SCAD 614 (1995);
Tatad vs. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 281 SCRA 330,
351-352 (1997); Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987); Solicitor
General vs. Metropolitan Manila Authority, 204 SCRA 837 (1991);
Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs. Dela Serna, 46 SCAD 690,228
SCRA 329 (1993); GMCR, Inc. vs. Bell Telecommunications Phil, Inc.,
82 SCAD 205, 271 SCRA 790 (1997); Conte vs. COA, 76 SCAD 19
(1996);Toledo vs. CSC, 202 SCRA 507 (1991); Grego vs. COMELEC,
82 SCAD 923, 274 SCRA 481 (1997); Nasipit Lumber Company vs.
NWPC, 94 SCAD 112, 289 SCRA 667 (1998); Cebu Institute
Technology vs. Ople, 156 SCRA 629 (1987); Lovina vs. Moreno, 9
SCRA 561-562; American Tobacco Co. Dir. of Patents, 67 SCRA 287
(1975); Maceda vs. Macaraeg, 197 SCRA 771 (1991); Asturias Sugar
Central, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 29 SCRA 617 (1969);
ABS-CBN vs. CTA, 108 SCRA 142 (1981))
LAWS ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
Class Date Topics
I Introductory Concepts
1.1 Public Office and public officers Art. XI, 1987 Constitution Section
2(b), RA 3019 Art. 203, Revised Penal Code
(Concerned Citizens of Laoag City vs. Arzaga, AMO No. P-94-1067,
Jan. 30, 1997)
(Fernanedz vs. Sto. Tomas, GR No. 116418, March 7, 2005)
(Laurel vs. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002)
(Segovia vs. Noel, 47 Phil. 543)
(Cornejo vs. Gabriel, 41 Phil. 188 1920)
(Abeja vs. Tanada, G.R. No. 110272 August 30, 1994)
(Javier vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 147026-27, September 11, 2009)
(Azarconn vs. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 747)
(Serena vs.Sandiganbayan, GR No. 162059, January 22, 2008)
(Go vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 172602, April 13, 2007)
1.2 Kinds of Public officers
a) De jure
b) De Facto
(Sampayan vs. Daza GR. No. 103903, September 11, 1992)
(General Manager of PPA vs. Monserate, GR No. 129616, April 17,
2002)
1.3 Who may be public officers: Eligibility and Qualifications
1.3.1 Who may prescribe qualifications
1.3.2 Time of possession of qualifications
(Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 257 SCRA 731)
1.3.3 Usual Qualifications Art. VI, Sections 2 and 6, 1987 Constitution
Art. VII, Section 3, 1987 Constitution Art. IX(B), (C), Section 1 (1),
1987 Constitution Section 22, Book V, EO 292 Art. III, Section 5, 1987
Constitution
(Maguera vs. Borra, GR No. L-24761, September 7, 1965)
(Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs, GR No. 157870
November 3, 2008)
1.3.4 Disqualification
a) Under the Constitution
b) Under Local Government Code
c) Other laws
1.3.5 Effect of Pardon Art. 36, Revised Penal Code (Monsanto vs.
Factoran, GR No. 78239, Feb. 9, 1989) (Garcia vs. Chairman of
Commission on Audit, GR No. 75025, Sept. 14, 1993)
1.4 Formation of Relations
1.4.1 By election
1.4.2 By appointment
(Central Bank of the Phil. vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No.
80455-56, April 10, 1989)
a) Appointment distinguished from designation
(Santiago vs. COA GR No. 92284, July 12, 1991)
(Sevilla vs. Santos, GR No. 88498, June 9, 1992)
1.4.3 Next-in-rank rule
(Santiago, Jr vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 81467, October
27, 1989)
1.4.4 Discretion of Appointing Authority
(Lapinid vs. CSC, GR No. 96298, May 14, 1991)
(Luego vs. Civil Sevice Commission, GR No. L-69137, Aug. 5, 1986)
1.5 Assumption and Term of office
(Borromeo vs. Mariano, 41 Phil. 322)
1.5.1 Doctrine of Hold-over
1.6 Code of Conduct: Ra 6713
(Carabeo vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 178000 and 178003,
December 4, 2009)
II Power, Duties, Privileges and Prohibitions
1.1 Source of power (Art. II, Section 1, 1987 Constitution)
1.2 Scope of authority
1.2.1 Doctrine of necessary Implication (Lo Cham vs. Ocampo, 77
Phil.636, 638 [1946])
1.3 Kinds of authority
1.3.1 Discretionary vs. Minister (Aprueba vs. Ganzon, 18 SCRA 8
[1966]. [22] G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000) (First Phil Holdings
Corporation vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 88345, Febuary 1, 1996)
1.4 Rights and Privileges
1.4.1 Right to office
1.4.2 Rights to compensation (Art. VI, Section 10, 1987 Constitution)
(Art. VII, Section 6) (Art. VIII, Section 10) (Art. IX-B, Section 8) (The
Civil Service Communication vs. Richard G. Cruz G.R. No. 187858,
August 9, 2011)
1.4.3 Presidential Immunity from suit
1.4.4 Doctrine of Official Immunity (Farolan vs. Solmac Marketing, GR
No. 83589, March 13, 1991) (Tuzon vs. Court of Appeals, GR No.
90107, August 21, 1992)
1.4.5 Preference in Promotion
1.4.6 Leave of absence
1.4.7 Retirement Pay
1.5 Prohibitions (Sections 5(3), 8, Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution
III Liabilities of Public Officers
3.1 Presumption of Good Faith and Regularity in the Performance of
Duties Sections 38 and 39, Administrative Code (Farolan vs. Solmac
Marketing, GR No. 83589, March 13, 1991) (Tuzon vs. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 90107, August 21, 1992) (Philippine Racing Club, et
al, vs. Arsenio Bonifacio, et al. G.R. No. L-11944)
3.2 Kinds of Liability
3.2.1 Nonfeasance
3.2.2 Misfeasance
3.2.3 Malfeasance
3.2.4 Test to determine of offense was committed in relation to the
office (Crisostomo vs. Sandiganbayan, GR no. 152398, April 14, 2005)
(Esteban vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 146646-49, March 11, 2005)
3.3 Three- Fold Liability Rule (San Luis vs. Court of Appeals, GR No.
80160, June 26, 1989) (Chavez vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 91391,
January 24, 1991) (Domingo vs. Rayala, GR No. 155831, February
18, 2008) (Office of the President and Presidential Anti-Graft
Commission vs. Calixto R. Cataquiz, G.R. No.183445, September 14,
2011)
3.4 Liability of Superior Officers for Acts of Subordinates (Cesa vs.
Office of the Ombudsman, GR No. 166658, April 30, 2008) (Arias vs.
Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 309)
IV Termination of Relations
4.1 Mode of Termination in General
4.2 End of Term (Fernandez vs. Ledesma, GR No. L-18878, March
30, 1963) (Hernandez vs. Villegas, GR No. L-17287, June 30, 1965)
4.3 Retirement (Beronilla vs. GSIS, GR No. L-21723, November 26,
1970)
4.4 Abolition of Office (Busay vs. Buenaventura, 94 Phil 1033)
(Manalang vs. Quitoriano, GR No. L-6898, April 30, 1954) (Facundo
vs. Pabalan, GR No. L-17746, January 31, 1962) (Cruz vs. Primicias,
23 SCRA 998)
4.5 Reorganization (Dario vs. Mison, GR No. 81954, August 8, 1989)
(Dela Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294) (Section 11, Art VIII, 1987
Constitution) (Biraogo vs. Truth Commission, GR No. 192935 –
193036, December 7, 2010)
4.6 Abandonment (Summers vs. Ozaeta, GR No. L-1534, October 25,
1948)
4.7 Incompatible Office
4.8. Resignation (Office of the President and Presidential Anti-Graft
Commission vs. Calixto R. Cataquiz, G.R. No. 183445, September 14,
2011) (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr., G.R.
No. 164679. July 27, 2011)
4.9 Removal (Office of the President and Presidential Anti-Graft
Commission vs. Calixto R. Cataquiz, G.R. No. 183445, September 14,
2011) (In Re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771)
4.10 Others
4.10.1 Recall
4.10.2 Prescription (Unabia vs. city Mayor, 99 Phil 253)
4.10.3 Failure to Assume Office (Section 11, BP 881)
V Administrative Discipline
5.1 Over Presidential Appointees
5.1.1 Exceptions (Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464) (Dolalas vs.
Ombudsman-Mindanao, GR No. 118808, December 24, 1996)
5.2 Over Non-Presidential Appointees (Section 46, Book V, EO 292)
5.3 Over Elective Officials
5.3.1 Article XI, 1987 Constitution
5.3.2 Sections 60-69, Local Government Code
5.4 The Ombudsman
5.4.1 Jurisdiction (OMB vs. CA, GR No. 160675, June 16, 2006)
(Remolona vs. CSC, 362 SCRA 804) (Acop v. Office of the
Ombudsman, 248 SCRA 566) (Camanag v. Guerrero, GR 1210117,
Feb. 17 1997)
(Khan, Jr. vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 125296, July 20, 2006)
5.4.2 Power to Investigate Administrative Charges (Ombudsman vs.
Galicia, GR No. 167711, October 10, 2008) (Office of Omb vs. Beltran,
GR No. 168039, June 5, 2009 (Omb vs. Court of Appeal, GR No.
167844,
November 22, 2006)
a) Concurrent with the Office of the President (Hagad vs. Dadole, 241
SCRA 242; Gonzales III vs. OP, GR No. 196231; Sulit vs. Ochoa, GR
No.
196232, September 4, 2012)
b) Concurrent with the DOJ (Honasan v. DOJ Panel of Investigating
Prosecutors, GR 159747, Apr. 13, 2004)
c) Power to investigate cases of ill-gotten wealth after Feb. 25, 1986
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan, Sept. 24, 1994)
d) Ombudsman for the Military (Agbay v. Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military. G.R. No. 134503, July 2, 1999)
5.4.3 Preventive Suspension (Lastimosa vs. Vasquez GR No. 116801,
April 6, 1995) (Carabeo vs.Court of Appeals, GR No. 178000,
December 4, 2009)
5.4.4 Enforcement of decisions (Marcelo G. Ganaden, et al. v. The
Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 170500 – 170510-11. June 1,
2011)
References:
Brillo-Lara and Lara (2014). Fundamentals of Administrative Law. REX Printing Company, Inc., 84
P Florentino St. Quezon City
Dennis B. Funa (2013). Administrative Accountability of Public Officers Revised Edition. Central
Book Supply Inc., Quezon City, Philippines
Classroom Rules:
1. Attendance is checked at the beginning of every meeting.
2. Recitation is conducted every meeting. As such, students must come to class prepared and
have read the materials to be covered.
3. A student who is called to recite must close his book during the recitation.
4. Electronic gadgets must be turned off or put into silent mode as soon as the class starts. If a
call has to be answered, the student may take the call by discretely leaving the classroom.
5. Laptops, tablets, and other similar electronic devices, that serve as data storage, are not
prohibited during classes; but the students who are called to recite should close these
electronic devices for the duration of their recitation.
6. A student, who is not in the classroom when called for recitation, is given a grade of 5.
Grading System:
Recitation - 20%
Mid-Term Exam - 40%
Final Exam - 40%
Prepared by: Reviewed and Recommended for Approval:
THE OFFICE OF THE COLLEGE OF LAW DANIEL L. DIAZ
DEAN, College of Law
Approved:
MARIA LADY SOL A. SUAZO, PhD
Vice President for Academic Affairs
