PART III: QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER

 Acts exercising quasi-judicial power

 Limitation
 Valid exercise of power
 Related powers
 Quantum of proof
 Enforcement and Execution
 Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction / Doctrine of Prior resort
 Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Quasi-judicial power, defined.

The power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to
decide in accordance with the standards to enforce and administer the law.

Acts in the exercise of quasi-judicial power, enumerated.

It is required to:

• Investigate and ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence

• Draw conclusions from them as basis for their official function and exercise of discretion in a
judicial nature. (Smart v. NTC 151908)

Quasi-judicial power, limitation.

But an administrative body cannot assume jurisdiction over a case pending in the regular
courts.

• Administrative agencies are neither part of the judicial system nor are they deemed judicial
tribunals.

• Even if it performs quasi-judicial functions, it does not depart from its basic nature as an
administrative agency.

They remain with the executive branch. As such, they cannot impose the judgment upon the
judiciary. (United v. Coslap)

Requirements for valid exercise Jurisdiction

Globe v. Public Service Commission L-27520

FACTS: An international telecommunications company operates a franchise

granted by law which failed to deliver a message abroad. A case was filed before the PSC, now NTC,
which found it liable for unsatisfactory service.

Because it failed to arrive on time, a case was filed before Public Service Commission which found it
liable for unsatisfactory service.

ISSUE: WON PSC has jurisdiction?

HELD: The law authorizing franchise limited the jurisdiction of the PSC "only with respect to the
rates" charged to the public and it does not include acts of negligence.

The jurisdiction of administrative agencies is limited to those U granted or necessarily implied by

law.

TN: This is a 1987 case, wherein telegram (snail mail) is being used.

Requirements for valid exercise

Due process

Utto v. Comelec 150111

Facts: The Comelec en banc voided the proclamation of the mayor who argued his right to due
process was denied because the twin-notice requirement of prior notice and hearing was not
observed.

Held: Even if it was not observed, the twin-notice requirement does not apply if the proclamation
was void ab initio. In administrative proceedings, due process simply means an opportunity to be
heard and to reconsider or explain either written or verbal. Substantial compliance doctrine in
administrative proceedings.

This rule applies a fortiori if the respondent chose not to avail of the opportunity to answer
charges because of the belief that the disciplining authority is without jurisdiction.

Garcia v. Pajaro 141149

Facts: An administrative case was filed by the treasurer against the revenue collector who refused to
attend the scheduled hearings despite notice because he believes it is the mayor who has authority
to discipline him.

Held: When a party refuses to answer the charges against him, he cannot invoke denial of due
process. The refusal to attend the scheduled hearings, despite notice, is at his own peril.

Rivera v. CSC L-27520

Facts: The Merit Systems Protection Board (MPSB) ruled on the motion for reconsideration filed by
the manager who was found guilty of grave misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best interest of
the service of the LBP. It was appealed to the CSC which sustained the original decision of the LBP.

The problem now, the then MPSB Chairman that rendered the decision is now the CSC
Commissioner.

The manager argued he was denied due process because the MPSB Chair that ruled on the motion
for reconsideration is now the CSC Commissioner who ruled on the appeal.

ISSUE: WON there was a denial of due process?

Held: In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce, then 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.
Related powers
1. Express Powers

2. Implied Powers / Doctrine of Necessary Implication

3. Related Powers

3.1. Power to promulgate rules of procedure

Provident Tree Farm v. Batario

Facts: The BoC banned the importation of wood, wood products or wood-derived products.
But its jurisdiction was challenged because the Tariff & Customs Code does not outline the
enforcement of the import ban.

Held: The absence of rules of procedure does not diminish jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Where the law does not require any particular rule of procedure to be followed by
an administrative agency, it may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its function.

3.2. Subpoena and contempt power

Carmel v. Ramos

Facts: The mayor created a committee to investigate anomalies in licensing. The committee
subpoenaed a private citizen to appear before the committee, but he refused hence a case for
contumacy (resistance) was filed before the trial court.

Held: Subpoena and contempt powers must be expressly granted by law. Whatever power claimed
by the committee comes from the power of the mayor to investigate as implied from the power to
suspend or remove employees. There is no statutory grant of power to investigate.

Ombudsman Act Section 15(g), gives it the power to "punish for contempt, in accordance with the
Rules of Court and under the same procedure and the same penalties provided therein."

Quantum of proof
1. Criminal case

Proof beyond reasonable doubt, means that the evidence presented, and the arguments put
forward by the prosecution establish the defendant's guilt so clearly that they must be accepted as
fact by any rational person.

2. Civil cases

Preponderance of evidence, simply means evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing
than what is offered against it.

3. Administrative case

Substantial evidence, such an amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Quantum of proof. means the level of proof required to convict.

Quantum of proof
Lameyra v. Pangilinan 131675

Facts: A janitor was dismissed from service by the mayor due to absence without leave on the
strength of the certification by a personnel officer that the janitor did not report for work one
month. This was affirmed by the CSC.

Held: While findings of fact of administrative agency must be respected, it must be supported by
substantial evidence.

Certification of the personnel officer does not amount to substantial evidence, especially against the
allegations that the janitor was prevented from signing the log book, replaced by another and forced
to resign.

And when it is supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or preponderant, it

must be respected, except when there is grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.

ERB v. CA 113079

Facts: The Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) approved the application for a gasoline retail outlet in a
trading area, but it was reversed by the Court of Appeals because it results in ruinous competition
and its feasibility study is already stale.

Held: The power to determine whether a gasoline station benefits the oil industry and public
interest lies with the ERB and not the appellate court.

Substantial evidence, defined.

Rubberworld v. NLRC 75704
Facts: An employee was dismissed due to stock cards discrepancies. But the employee filed a case
for unfair labor practice because the dismissal is a mere result of his refusal to disaffiliate from the
union.

Held: Unfair labor practice was belied by the fact that the employee pursued the case alone where
normally he is supported by the union.

There is likewise no proof of affiliation, much less existence of the union.

There is no substantial evidence which is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Enforcement and execution
Lapid v. CA 142261
Facts: A governor was suspended by the Ombudsman for 1 year after he was found guilty of
conspiracy with other officials for illegal quarrying and collecting fees without the benefit of an
ordinance.

The governor filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals and prayed for injunctive relief
but it did not act on it. Thus, the governor went to the SC which likewise did not grant the injunctive
relief and instead required parties to comment.

On the same day, the CA acted and denied it the DILG enforced the decision.

Issue: Whether the one-year suspension is immediately executory.

HELD: It depends. If the law creating the administrative agency states that its orders or decisions are
immediately final and executory, an appeal does not stay its execution.

Sec. 68 of the LGC says: "An appeal shall not prevent a decision from being final and executory."
The respondent shall be considered as having been placed under preventive suspension during the
pendency of the appeal in the event he wins such appeal. In the event the appeal results in his
exoneration, he shall be paid his salary and such other emoluments during the pendency of the
appeal.

• Whereas the Administrative Code of 1987 says: " An appeal shall not stop the decision from
being executory, and in case the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be
considered as having been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the
event he wins the appeal."

It is silent as to WON you are entitled to salary in case you are exonerated. Apply it by analogy
because it is silent.

• Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act says "Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of
public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month's salary shall be final and
unappealable"

Unappealable

• In all administrative disciplinary case, orders, directives or decisions, of the Office of the
Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10)
days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for
reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

•In all other cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of ten (10) days from receipt
thereof by the respondent xxx".

•Suspension for one year without pay is not enumerated as immediately final and unappealable.
That an appeal prevents finality and execution depends on whether the law expressly says so.
  Since the governor was charged before the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman Act
applies. If before the Office of the President, the LGC applies. If before the CSC, the
Administrative Code applies.
Villasenor v. Ombudsman 202303
Facts: Two electrical inspectors were dismissed and suspended for one year by the Ombudsman for
violation of code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees for negligence
resulting in a hotel fire that killed 74 persons. Despite their appeal from their suspension and
dismissal, the Ombudsman enforced the decision. But they argued that the Administrative Order 17
that amended the Ombudsman rules does not apply to them because it took effect 3 months after
the decision was issued and 3 years after it was enforced. Hence, it cannot be applied
retroactively.

Issue: WON rules of procedures can be applied retroactively.

Held: While Art. 4 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall not have retroactive effect, it does not
apply to rules of procedure of the courts. Being retroactive in nature, they apply to actions
pending and unresolved at the time of their passage.

The Ombudsman Rules of Procedure are procedural in nature thus may be applied retroactively to
cases pending and unresolved at the time of passage.

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction or doctrine of prior resort, definition and nature of.

PSUMW v. Samar Mining, cited in Abejo v. dela Cruz L-63558

Under the sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the courts cannot or will
not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal where the question demands exercise of sound discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical
and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purpose of the
regulatory statute administered.

Thus, jurisdiction over unsound real estate practices pertains to the National Housing Authority, and
not the courts, the former having been granted regulatory authority with quasi-judicial functions.

Antipolo Realty v. NHA L-50444

Facts: A buyer of a subdivision unit stopped paying after the developer failed to beautify the
subdivision per contract to sell. After the buyer refused to pay, the developer rescinded the contract
to sell but it was reinstated by the NHA which jurisdiction is now assailed by the developer.

Held: NHA is vested by statute exclusive jurisdiction over certain disputes falling within its expertise.

TN: NHA=HLURB/DHSUB
But the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not necessarily divest the court of jurisdiction, it
merely suspends the proceedings pending referral to the administrative body.

It depends, sometimes the court will dismiss sometimes it does not. And here, within this context it
means that it could be referred to commissioners. There are questions there that cannot be resolved
by the court on the simple basis that the court has no expertise.

For example, land dispute, encroachment, there are technical descriptions there, the judge is
clueless about those technical descriptions, so what they do is they require to litigants to choose a
commissioner, then the judge will approve the nomination of the commissioners. It is now the
commissioners who will make the findings of fact and make recommendations to the court. And the
court will either approve of or reject the recommendation.

Villaflor v. CA 95694
"Where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of
the claim requires the resolution of the issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed
within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is
suspended pending referral to such issues to the administrative body for its review."

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Garcia v. CA 100579
Facts: A complaint was filed against an administrator of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) for
alleged irregularities.

The PCA Governing Board created an Investigation Committee which recommended

administrative charges against and preventively suspending the administrator. But the administrator
filed several motions and pleadings that unduly delayed the case hence the Investigation Committee
ruled that the delay be not counted in the period of preventive suspension. He went to the court for
injunctive relief.

Held: The immediate recourse to the court is premature and precipitate. Apart from the fact that
the investigation was still ongoing, there is still an administrative remedy from the decision of the
PCA Governing Board, that is, an appeal to the CSC.

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, direct recourse to courts does not
prosper until after all administrative remedies are first exhausted.

The remedy is not to halt the proceedings but to take part, assert and vindicate the rights in
administrative proceedings.

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, exceptions.

1. Due process is violated

2. Issue involves pure question of law

3. Administrative Action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

4. Estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned

5. There is irreparable injury

6. Respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the president, bears implied
and assumed approval of the latter.

7. Exhaustion is unreasonable.

8. Exhaustion amounts to nullification of claim

9. Subject matter is a private land in land case proceeding

10. The rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy

11. There are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. (Paat v. CA 111107)

12. When strong public interest is involved

 . When it involves question relating to the status and existence of a public office, it must be
settled without delay. (Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora 142801-802)
 • When it involves question relating to validity of reorganization, its serious implications in
the administration of civil service and rights of public servants, which resolution is needed
for stability in public service. (Dario v. Mison 81954)

13. In quo warranto proceedings (Sunville v. Abad 85502)

14. When the claim involved is small (Castro v. Gloria 132174)

Castro v. Gloria 132174

Facts: A public school teacher was dismissed for disgraceful and immoral conduct. But he argues it
warrants suspension only for first time offenders.

Held: When the issue asks what is the applicable law, it is a pure question of law. As such, it is an
exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, effects of.

1. It renders the action premature, meaning the claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial
determination hence there is no cause of action to ventilate in court. (Carale v. Abarintos 120704)

2. Results in lack of cause of action. (Sunville v. Abad & Castro v. Gloria 132174)

3. It results in dismissal for failure to comply with a condition precedent. (Sec. 1. Rule 16, Revised
Rules of Court)