Quasi-Judicial Body or Agency (Q5-2006)

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Bar Exams Reviewer

3. What is a quasi-judicial body or agency? (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A quasi-judicial body or agency is an administrative body with the power to hear, determine or ascertain facts and decide rights, duties and obligations of the parties by the application of rules to the ascertained facts. By this power, quasi-judicial agencies are enabled to interpret and apply implementing rules and regulations promulgated by them and laws entrusted to their administration.

Government Agency vs. Government Instrumentality (Q72005)

(3) State with reason(s) which of the following is a government agency or a government instrumentality: Department of Public Works and Highways; Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas; Philippine Ports Authority; Land Transportation Office; Land Bank of the Philippines. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: An INSTRUMENTALITY refers to any agency of the national government not integrated within the departmental framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. (Iron and Steel Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102976, October 25, 1995) AGENCY under the administrative code is any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the national government, authorized by law or executive order to

make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions with respect to licensing functions; government corporations with respect to functions regulating private rights, privileges, occupation or business, and officials in the exercise of the disciplinary powers as provided by law. There is NO PRACTICAL DISTINCTION between an instrumentality and agency, for all intents and purposes. A distinction, however, may be made with respect to those entities possessing a separate charter created by statute. DPWH is an agency. It does not possess a separate charter. BSP is an instrumentality because it was incorporated under the new Central Bank Law (R.A. No. 7653) PPA can be defined as both an instrumentality and an agency because it was incorporated by special law and it has its own charter, yet it is integrated with the DOTC. LTO is an agency. It is an office of the DOTC. LBP is an instrumentality having a charter under a special law and is a government financial institution (GFI) independent of any department of government.

Rules and Regulations; Due Process (2000)

No III. -The Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) issued new rules and regulations governing pilotage services and fees, and the conduct of pilots in Philippine ports. This it did without notice, hearing nor consultation with harbor pilots or their associations whose rights and activities are to be substantially affected. The harbor pilots then filed suit to have the new MARINA rules and regulations declared unconstitutional for having been issued without due process. Decide the case. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The issuance of the new rules and regulations violated due process. Under Section 9, Chapter II, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987, as far as practicable, before

adopting proposed rules, an administrative agency should publish or circulate notices of the proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views; and in the fixing of rates, no rule shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks before the first hearing on them. In accordance with this provision, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v CA, 261 SCRA 236 (1996), it was held that when an administrative rule substantially increases the burden of those directly affected, they should be accorded the chance to be heard before its issuance. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Submission of the rule to the University of the Philippines Law Center for publication is mandatory. Unless this requirement is complied with, the rule cannot be enforced.

Power of the President to Reorganize Administrative Structure (2003)

No VI The President abolished the Office of the Presidential Spokesman in Malacanang Palace and a long-standing Bureau under the Department of Interior and Local Governments. The employees of both offices assailed the action of the President for being an encroachment of legislative powers and thereby void. Was the contention of the employees correct? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The contention of the employees is not correct. As held in Buklod ng Kawaning EHB v. Zamora. 360 SCRA 718 [2001], Section 31, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987 has delegated to the President continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency. Since this includes the power to abolish offices, the President can abolish the Office of the Presidential Spokesman, provided it is done in good faith. The President can also abolish the Bureau in the Department of Interior and Local Governments, provided it is done in good faith because the President has been granted continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the National Government to effect economy and promote efficiency, and the powers include the abolition of government offices.

(Presidential Decree No. 1416, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1772; Larin v. The Executive Secretary. 280 SCRA 713 [1997]).

Meaning of Government of the Philippines (1997)

No. 3: Are government-owned or controlled corporations within the scope and meaning of the Government of the Philippines? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Section 2 of the Introductory Provision of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines the government of the Philippines as the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, same as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government. Government owned or controlled corporation are within the scope and meaning of the Government of the Philippines if they are performing governmental or political functions.

Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions (1988)

No. 17: Apex Logging Co. and Batibot Logging Co. are adjacent timber concession holders in Isabela. Because of boundary conflicts, and mutual charges of incursions into their respective concession areas, the Bureau of Forestry ordered a survey to establish on the ground their common boundary. The Bureau of Forestrys decision in effect favored Batibot. Apex appealed to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and this department reversed the decision of the Bureau of Forestry and sustained Apex. It was the turn of Batibot to appeal to the Office of the President. The Office of the President through an Asst. Executive Secretary sustained the Department of Natural Resources arid Environment. On a motion for reconsideration by Batibot, however, an Asst. Executive Secretary other than the one who signed the decision

affirming the decision of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment decided for Batibot, Dissatisfied with the Administrative action on the controversy. Apex filed an action with the Regional Trial Court against Batibot, the Director of Forestry, and the Asst. Executive Secretaries insisting that a judicial review of such divergent administrative decisions is necessary to determine the correct boundary line of the licensed areas in question. Batibot moved to dismiss the action, but the Regional Trial Court denied the same and even enjoined enforcement of the decision of the Office of the President. Batibots motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Batibot then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to review and annul the orders of the Regional Trial Court. Do you believe the petition for certiorari and prohibition is meritorious? Why or why not? SUGGESTED ANSWER: The petition for certiorari and prohibition is meritorious, The order of the trial court must accordingly be set aside. As held in a similar case, Lianga Bay Logging Co. v. Enage, 152 SCRA 80 (1987), decisions of administrative officers should not be disturbed by the courts except when the former have acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The mere suspicion of Apex that there were anomalies in the nonrelease of the first decision and its substitution of a new one by another Assistant Executive Secretary does not justify judicial review. Mere beliefs, suspicions and conjectures cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of official action.

Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2001)

No XIV Give the two (2) requisites for the judicial review of administrative decision/actions, that is, when is an administrative action ripe for Judicial review? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The following are the conditions for ripeness for judicial review of an administrative action: 1. The administrative action has already been fully completed and, therefore, is a final agency action; and

2. All administrative remedies have been exhausted. [Gonzales, Administrative Law, Rex Bookstore: Manila, p. 136 (1979)].

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Exceptions (1991)

No. 8: On the basis of a verified report and confidential information that various electronic equipment, which were illegally imported into the Philippines, were found in the bodega of the Tikasan Corporation located at 1002 Binakayan St., Cebu City, the Collector of Customs of Cebu issued, in the morning of 2 January 1988, a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the corporation for the seizure of the electronic equipment. The warrant particularly describes the electronic equipment and specifies the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code which were violated by the importation. The warrant was served and implemented in the afternoon of 2 January 1988 by Customs policemen who then seized the described equipment. The inventory of the seized articles was signed by the Secretary of the Tikasan Corporation. The following day, a hearing officer in the Office of the Collector of Customs conducted a hearing on the confiscation of the equipment. Two days thereafter, the corporation filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to set aside the warrant, enjoin the Collector and his agents from further proceeding with the forfeiture hearing and to secure the return of the confiscated equipment, alleging therein that the warrant issued is null and void for the reason that, pursuant to Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, only a judge may issue a search warrant. In his comment to the petition, the Collector of Customs, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contends that he is authorized under the Tariff and Custom Code to order the seizure of the equipment whose duties and taxes were not paid and that the corporation did not exhaust administrative remedies. (a) Should the petition be granted? Decide. (b) If the Court would sustain the contention of the Collector of Customs on the matter of exhaustion of administrative remedies, what is the administrative remedy available to the corporation?

(c) What are the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies? SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) No. No search warrant from court needed. (b) As pointed out in Chia us. Acting Collector of Customs, 177 SCRA 753, the administrative remedy available under Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code is to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs, from whose decision an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals lies. (c) The following are the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies: 1. The case deals with private land; 2. The question involved is purely legal; 3. The case involves a quo warranto proceeding; 4. There is denial of due process; 5. The decision is patently illegal; 6. The aggrieved party will suffer irreparable injury; 7. There is estoppel; 8. Resort to administrative remedies would be futile; 9. The decision is that of a department head; 10. The law expressly provides for immediate judicial review; 11. Public interest is involved; 12. There was unreasonable delay in the administrative proceedings; and

13. The aggrieved party is poor.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies vs Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction (1996)

No. 11: 1) Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 2) Does the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a case in court oust said court of jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER; 1) The doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies both deal with the proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone. Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has been completed. As stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative case. 2) No, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a case in court does not oust the court of jurisdiction to hear the case. As held in Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 384, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court but results in the lack of a cause of action, because a condition precedent that must be satisfied before action can be filed was not fulfilled.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (2000)

No XIII. a) Explain the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (2%)

b) Give at least three (3) exceptions to its application. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A.) The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies means that when an adequate remedy is available within the Executive Department, a litigant must first exhaust this remedy before he can resort to the courts. The purpose of the doctrine is to enable the administrative agencies to correct themselves if they have committed an error. (Rosales v. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 344 [19881) B.) The following are the exceptions to the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The question involved is purely legal; The administrative body is in estoppel; The act complained of is patently illegal; There is an urgent need for Judicial intervention; The claim involved is small; Grave and irreparable injury will be suffered; There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; Strong public interest is involved; The subject of the controversy is private law;

10. The case involves a quo warranto proceeding (Sunville Timber Products, Inc. v. Abad. 206 SCRA 482 {1992); 11. The party was denied due process (Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 147 [1999]);

12. The decision is that of a Department Secretary. (Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131641, February 23. 2000); 13. Resort to administrative remedies would be futile (University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Rasul 200 SCRA 685 [1991]); 14. There is unreasonable delay (Republic v, Sandiganbayan, 301 SCRA 237 [1999]); 15. The action involves recovery of physical possession of public land (Gabrito u. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 771 {1988]); 16. The party is poor (Sabello v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 180 SCRA 623 [1989]); and 17. The law provides for immediate resort to the court (Rulian v Valdez, 12 SCRA 501 [1964]). {Note: The examinee should be given full credit if he gives three of the above-mentioned exceptions.}

Wilson Doctrine vs. Estrada Doctrine (2004)

(2-a-5) Distinguish: The Wilson doctrine and the Estrada doctrine regarding recognition of governments. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under the WILSON DOCTRINE, recognition shall not be extended to any government established by revolution or internal violence until the freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government. Under the ESTRADA DOCTRINE, the Mexican government declared that it would, as it saw fit, continue or terminate its diplomatic relations with any country in which a political upheaval had taken place and in so doing it would not pronounce judgment on the right of the foreign state to accept, maintain or replace its government. (Cruz, International Law, 2003 ed.) (In view of recent developments, the Wilson doctrine and the Estrada doctrine are no longer in the mainstream of public international law.)