I.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
a. Preliminary Considerations
ii. Administrative Law: Nature, Kinds and Scope
Case: GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014
📜 Doctrine:
Administrative agencies are not courts; they are neither part of the judicial system nor
are they deemed judicial tribunals.
Expanded Summary:
During the 2013 elections, the COMELEC issued a resolution limiting airtime for political
advertisements across all networks, rather than per station. GMA Network challenged the
resolution as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of expression and a violation of equal
protection. COMELEC justified the limitation as a measure to equalize political opportunities.
The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC had no authority to issue such regulation as it went
beyond its mandate and encroached on the domain of Congress. The Court emphasized that
although COMELEC has administrative powers, it is not a judicial body and cannot interpret
laws in a manner that expands its power. It held that administrative agencies, while exercising
certain quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions, are not part of the judiciary and must act
within the limits of their enabling laws.
Case: Smart Communications, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)
G.R. No. 151908, August 12, 2004
📜 Doctrine:
Administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the exercise of their rule-making
power. The scope of such power includes the issuance of regulations, orders, and
circulars to interpret and implement statutes.
Expanded Summary:
Smart Communications questioned NTC's directive to enforce compulsory interconnection
among telecommunications companies. Smart argued that such order violated its property rights
and was beyond NTC's authority. The Court held that NTC has regulatory and supervisory
powers under its enabling statute, and its directive was within its rule-making authority to ensure
fair and efficient telecommunications services. The Court explained that administrative agencies
are entrusted with technical expertise and flexibility in implementing statutory policies and can
issue regulations and directives to interpret and carry out their mandates, provided these are
within legal limits and not arbitrary.
iii. Administrative Law and the Courts
Case: Paat v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 111107, January 10, 1997
📜 Doctrine:
Where the law provides for an administrative remedy, the regular courts will not
entertain a case unless the administrative remedies have been exhausted.
Expanded Summary:
Paat questioned the reclassification of his land by the DENR, claiming that it deprived him of
ownership rights. Instead of appealing through the DENR's internal mechanisms or exhausting
administrative remedies under the Revised Forestry Code, he went straight to court. The Court
emphasized the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, holding that when a law
provides a remedy before an administrative body, that remedy must first be pursued before a
case may be brought before the courts. The rationale is to allow the agency with technical
expertise to resolve the issue and to prevent unnecessary judicial interference. Since Paat
bypassed the administrative process, his case was dismissed.
Case: Republic v. Lacap
G.R. No. 158253, June 29, 2005
📜 Doctrine:
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when a case involves questions that demand
the special competence of administrative agencies.
Expanded Summary:
Lacap filed a complaint for annulment of title over a land dispute despite the matter falling
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The
Court ruled that because the issues involved technical questions of land classification and
survey accuracy, they should first be resolved by the DENR, which has the necessary expertise
and jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires courts to suspend or dismiss cases
when administrative bodies with special knowledge are better positioned to make the initial
determination. Only after the agency renders a final decision can the courts review the matter.
Case: Dar v. Aberca
G.R. No. 79310, April 5, 1989
📜 Doctrine:
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where the issue
raised is purely legal.
Expanded Summary:
Aberca and several others sued DAR officials for violating their constitutional rights during a
warrantless arrest. The DAR argued that the case should be dismissed due to failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. The Court held that the doctrine does not apply when the issue is
purely legal — in this case, the legality of an arrest and alleged constitutional violations — which
courts are well-equipped to address. The requirement of administrative exhaustion is relaxed
when it would be futile or inappropriate, particularly when constitutional rights are at stake.
Case: Labial v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 114985, December 10, 1996
📜 Doctrine:
The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute and admits of
exceptions, such as when the questioned act is patently illegal or the agency is in
estoppel.
Expanded Summary:
Labial was dismissed from government service and filed a court case alleging that his
termination was carried out in bad faith and without due process. The agency contended that he
should have appealed administratively first. The Court ruled that the exhaustion rule is not
ironclad. It recognized exceptions — including when the action complained of is patently illegal
or when the agency has shown bias or prejudice. Because Labial alleged bad faith and a clear
violation of due process, he was justified in seeking immediate judicial relief.
b. Creation and Abolition of Administrative Agencies
i. Administrative Agency: Nature, Purpose, and Types
Case: Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission
G.R. No. L-6068, October 26, 1953
📜 Doctrine:
The Public Service Commission, like other administrative agencies, is created for the
purpose of securing to the public the advantage of a prompt, continuous, and efficient
public service.
Expanded Summary:
A transportation company appealed a decision of the Public Service Commission (PSC)
involving route assignments. The petitioner argued that the PSC had acted beyond its power.
The Supreme Court ruled that the PSC was created to regulate public utilities and ensure the
continuous and efficient delivery of services to the public. As such, it has wide discretion within
the scope of its enabling statute. Administrative agencies are established to provide specialized
regulation in areas requiring technical knowledge and swift action. The Court affirmed that their
actions are presumed valid if within their jurisdiction and directed at public welfare.
Case: Gascon v. Arroyo
G.R. No. 78345, April 15, 1988
📜 Doctrine:
Administrative bodies may be vested with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers
necessary for them to perform their functions effectively.
Expanded Summary:
Petitioners questioned the legality of the creation of the Office of the Press Secretary under
President Arroyo, claiming it had been vested with too much power. The Court ruled that
administrative agencies may validly exercise not just executive functions but also
quasi-legislative (rule-making) and quasi-judicial (dispute-resolution) powers when delegated by
law. These powers are incidental and necessary for the proper functioning of such bodies,
particularly in regulating complex and technical areas. The decision emphasized the pragmatic
need to allow agencies flexibility in carrying out their mandates.
ii. Creation, Reorganization, and Abolition of Offices
Case: Department of Health v. Camposano
G.R. No. 162571, February 3, 2006
📜 Doctrine:
The power to abolish a public office is lodged in the same authority having the power to
create it. In the absence of a valid law abolishing the office, the alleged abolition is void.
Expanded Summary:
Camposano, a government employee, was separated from service after her office was
allegedly abolished by the Department of Health. She challenged the legality of the move. The
Supreme Court ruled in her favor, stressing that the abolition of a public office must be done by
law or by the same authority that created it. Mere administrative convenience or budget
constraints are insufficient to justify the termination of tenured employees. Since there was no
law or valid reorganization basis, her removal was declared invalid.
Case: Tapiador v. Secretary of Budget and Management
G.R. No. 119902, October 9, 1995
📜 Doctrine:
The reorganization of government offices must be exercised in good faith and must not
violate the security of tenure of civil service employees.
Expanded Summary:
Tapiador contested his removal following a reorganization implemented by the DBM. He
claimed that the reorganization was used as a façade to remove him from office. The Court
acknowledged the government’s authority to reorganize its offices but underscored that such
power must be exercised in good faith. Security of tenure is a constitutionally protected right and
cannot be defeated by arbitrary reassignments or dismissals under the guise of reorganization.
The Court reinstated Tapiador, ruling that the agency failed to prove the good faith of the
reorganization.
c. Principle of Non-Delegation of Powers
i. Rules of Non-Delegation of Powers; Instances of Permissive Delegation
Case: Pelaez v. Auditor General
G.R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965
📜 Doctrine:
The rule is that legislative power may not be delegated; however, there are recognized
exceptions such as when the delegation relates to the implementation of a law and the
law is complete in itself and provides sufficient standards.
Expanded Summary:
Congress passed Republic Act No. 4221 authorizing the President to create municipalities by
executive order. Relying on this law, the President created the Municipality of Marcos in
Mindanao. Pelaez challenged the creation, asserting that the power to create municipalities is
legislative in nature and cannot be validly delegated to the executive. The Supreme Court ruled
that the delegation was invalid because the law failed to provide a sufficient standard and was
incomplete. It allowed the President to exercise essentially legislative discretion, which violated
the principle of non-delegation. Although Congress may delegate the implementation of a law, it
must lay down a complete policy and an intelligible standard to guide the delegate’s actions.
Case: People v. Maceren
G.R. No. L-32166, October 18, 1977
📜 Doctrine:
Administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law; they
cannot extend the law or amend it.
Expanded Summary:
Maceren was arrested for fishing with explosives based on a Fisheries Administrative Order
(FAO) issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. He claimed the FAO imposed penal sanctions not
found in the Fisheries Law. The Supreme Court ruled that administrative agencies cannot issue
rules that go beyond what is allowed by statute. The FAO in question created an offense and a
penalty not authorized by law, which amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative
power. The Court reiterated that administrative issuances are valid only if they are consistent
with and confined to the limits of the law they implement.
ii. Tests for the Valid Exercise of Delegation
1. Completeness Test
2. Sufficiency of Standard Test
Case: Edu v. Ericta
G.R. No. L-32096, October 24, 1970
📜 Doctrine:
A law is complete when it sets forth the policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate.
Expanded Summary:
The law authorized the City of Manila to require private cemeteries to allocate 6% of their land
for pauper burials. The issue was whether such delegation to the city government was valid.
The Court held that the law passed the completeness test because it declared a sufficient
policy — to ensure burial space for indigents — and left only the implementation to the city. It
was also held to satisfy the sufficiency of standard test, as the standard for exercise was
implicit in the policy to aid the poor and uphold public welfare.
Case: Pelaez v. Auditor General (cited again for both tests)
📜 Doctrine:
The standard must specify the limits of the delegate’s authority, provide a clear policy,
and ensure that the delegation is not purely discretionary.
Expanded Summary:
As previously stated, the law allowing the President to create municipalities lacked both
completeness and an intelligible standard. Congress did not declare any policy objective or
provide a benchmark for the President to follow, making the delegation of legislative power
invalid under both the completeness test and the sufficiency of standard test.
iii. Standard and Criterion for Lawfulness
Case: Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court
G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987
📜 Doctrine:
The absence of an intelligible standard in delegating legislative power renders the
delegation unconstitutional.
Expanded Summary:
Ynot was prosecuted for transporting carabaos from one province to another, which was
prohibited by an executive order. He challenged the constitutionality of the order. The Court
ruled in his favor, stating that the executive issuance was not based on a clear legislative policy
nor did it follow an intelligible standard set by law. Without legislative guidance, the executive
was essentially creating law, which violated the non-delegation doctrine. The ruling reaffirmed
that all delegated powers must be guided by a valid standard to prevent arbitrary and
unauthorized exercise of power.
d. Powers of Administrative Agencies
i. Sources and Scope of Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies
Case: Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds Corp.
G.R. No. 179579, February 1, 2012
📜 Doctrine:
Administrative agencies only have such powers as are expressly granted to them by law
or necessarily implied therefrom.
Expanded Summary:
Hypermix Feeds Corp. filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Customs (COC) regarding
alleged smuggling and improper importation. The COC issued a ruling in favor of a different
importer and denied Hypermix’s request for intervention. The Supreme Court held that
administrative agencies, like the COC, can only exercise powers specifically granted by law or
those that are necessarily implied. Since the agency’s ruling had no legal basis under the Tariff
and Customs Code and its procedures were irregular, the decision was void. The case
emphasized that administrative power is not inherent and must be strictly construed.
Case: Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations (CIR)
G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940
📜 Doctrine:
Administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions must observe due process;
there are cardinal primary rights that must be respected.
Expanded Summary:
The case involved a dispute between Ang Tibay, a manufacturer, and its labor union. The CIR
ruled in favor of the union without giving the employer the opportunity to present evidence. The
Supreme Court reversed the decision, laying down the seven “cardinal primary rights” of due
process in administrative proceedings: (1) the right to a hearing, (2) the right to present
evidence, (3) the right to know opposing evidence, (4) the right to a decision based on evidence
presented, (5) the tribunal’s duty to consider the evidence, (6) the tribunal’s obligation to base its
decision on substantial evidence, and (7) the necessity of a decision rendered by the deciding
officers themselves. These principles form the bedrock of administrative due process and
remain controlling to this day.
ii. Nature of Administrative Actions
Case: GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014
(Previously discussed under Nature, Kinds, and Scope; cited again here for classification of
agency action)
📜 Doctrine:
Administrative actions may be quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, or purely administrative.
These classifications determine the nature and limits of the powers exercised.
Expanded Summary:
COMELEC issued regulations limiting airtime for election ads. GMA Network questioned the
legality of the measure. The Supreme Court held that the issuance was a quasi-legislative act,
as it was meant to apply broadly and uniformly, not just to a particular party. The Court
emphasized that the classification of administrative action—whether legislative, judicial, or
administrative—dictates the kind of procedure and review applicable. Quasi-legislative actions
involve rule-making and generally do not require notice and hearing, unlike quasi-judicial acts.
iii. Administrative Rule-Making vs. Adjudication
Case: Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. v. Kapisanan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa
Coca-Cola–FFW
G.R. No. 148205, August 31, 2005
📜 Doctrine:
Rule-making involves the issuance of regulations of general applicability, while
adjudication involves the determination of rights based on particular facts after notice
and hearing.
Expanded Summary:
A labor union challenged a DOLE department order concerning labor inspections, claiming it
was issued without notice and hearing. The Court ruled that such orders were quasi-legislative
in character and thus did not require hearing or consultation. The distinction is that rule-making
creates norms for future application, while adjudication applies existing norms to past conduct.
The ruling clarified that not all administrative issuances require a trial-type proceeding, unless
specifically mandated by law or affecting vested rights.
Case: Philcomsat v. Alcuaz
G.R. No. 77639, May 2, 1988
📜 Doctrine:
The exercise of rule-making power by administrative agencies does not require trial-type
hearings; it is legislative in character and may be exercised through the agency’s
discretion.
Expanded Summary:
The NTC issued an order adjusting the rates of telecommunication services. Philcomsat argued
that it should have been granted a hearing before the rate adjustment took effect. The Court
ruled that the NTC’s action was a valid exercise of its quasi-legislative power. As a general rule,
administrative rule-making does not require prior notice and hearing unless specifically required
by law. Rule-making differs from adjudication in that it applies to the public generally and not to
particular individuals.
e. Quasi-Legislative Power
i. Kinds of Administrative Rules and Regulations
Case: Tañada v. Tuvera
G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986
📜 Doctrine:
Legislative rules are those issued by an administrative agency to implement a law and
have the force and effect of law; interpretative rules are mere constructions of the statute
and need not be published.
Expanded Summary:
Petitioners questioned the validity of unpublished presidential decrees and administrative
issuances. The Court ruled that legislative rules, which affect the public and implement existing
laws, must be published to be valid and effective. In contrast, interpretative rules merely
explain existing law and do not require publication unless they impose additional burdens or
affect substantive rights. The case drew a key distinction between types of administrative rules:
(1) legislative rules that create new law or affect rights and obligations; (2) interpretative rules
that guide internal agency understanding of laws; and (3) internal rules that deal with agency
management and do not concern the public.
Case: Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security Commission
G.R. No. L-20245, September 27, 1965
📜 Doctrine:
When a rule adds a requirement not found in the law itself, it is legislative in nature and
must be published.
Expanded Summary:
Victorias Milling was penalized for non-compliance with an SSS circular requiring the filing of
certain employer records. The company argued that the circular was not published and thus not
binding. The Court held that since the circular imposed a new requirement affecting the rights of
employers, it was legislative in nature and should have been published. The failure to publish
rendered it unenforceable. The decision emphasized that rules that alter or add to the law must
follow due process, including publication and, in some cases, public consultation.
ii. Validity of Rules and Regulations; Requisites
Case: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 119322, June 4, 1996
📜 Doctrine:
To be valid, administrative rules must (1) be within the authority of the agency, (2) be
consistent with the law, and (3) be issued according to prescribed procedure.
Expanded Summary:
The CIR disallowed certain deductions claimed by a taxpayer based on a BIR ruling. The
taxpayer challenged this, arguing that the regulation used as basis had no legal foundation. The
Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer. It stated that while agencies have the power to interpret tax
laws, their rulings must conform to the legislative intent and must not contradict or exceed
statutory authority. Administrative rules are not valid if they extend beyond what the law
allows, or if they were issued without compliance with necessary procedural requirements,
including publication and consistency with enabling law.
Case: Cebu United Enterprises v. Victorias Milling Co.
G.R. No. L-21528, February 28, 1969
📜 Doctrine:
For administrative rules to be valid, they must be reasonable and not contrary to the
Constitution or the law.
Expanded Summary:
The case involved a government circular limiting the shipment of sugar. Cebu United contested
the rule’s validity, arguing that it imposed unfair restrictions not contemplated by law. The Court
ruled that even if an agency is authorized to issue rules, such rules must still be reasonable,
not arbitrary, and not violative of statutory or constitutional provisions. The circular was
declared invalid because it lacked statutory basis and unfairly discriminated against certain
industry players.
iii. Administrative Rules with Penal Sanctions; Requisites for Validity
Case: People v. Maceren
G.R. No. L-32166, October 18, 1977
📜 Doctrine:
Administrative rules that provide for penal sanctions must be based on a valid
delegation of legislative power and must not exceed the terms of the enabling statute.
Expanded Summary:
Maceren was apprehended for violating a Fisheries Administrative Order that penalized certain
fishing practices. He argued that the FAO was invalid as it was not based on a penal provision
in the law. The Court agreed, stating that penal sanctions cannot be imposed by
administrative issuances unless clearly authorized by statute. The agency exceeded its
power by creating new offenses without legislative basis. The ruling underscored the principle
that criminal liability must stem from law, and not from administrative discretion.
iv. Necessity of Notice and Hearing
Case: Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security Commission
(Re-cited; G.R. No. L-20245, September 27, 1965)
📜 Doctrine:
Notice and hearing are generally not required in the issuance of legislative rules;
however, they are required in quasi-judicial or adjudicatory proceedings.
Expanded Summary:
VMC objected to the imposition of penalties under an unpublished circular, further arguing that
it was not heard before being penalized. The Court clarified that quasi-legislative acts, such as
rule-making, do not require notice and hearing, unless the law specifically requires it. In
contrast, quasi-judicial acts, which involve the determination of rights or liabilities of particular
parties, do require procedural due process. Since the action against VMC was regulatory in
nature and imposed through an unpublished rule, it was doubly invalid.
