GOD!!!!

Appeal, how done

filing notice of appeal with adjudicating agency

• serve copies to prevailing party and appellate agency

• pay required fees

period of appeal

15 days for receipt of decision by adversely affected party

FX appeal

GR: stays decision appealed from

• XPN: otherwise provided by law

• XPN: appellate agency orders execution

action on appeal

• review the record

• receive additional evidence (may be motu proprio)

decision of the appellate agency becomes final and executory

15 days after receipt of the parties of a copy thereof

hearing officers

such number of qualified and competent members of the base

• no hearing officer shall be engaged in the performance of prosecuting functions in any contested case

process for judicial review

filing a notice of appeal with the agency (within 15d)

AND filing pet rev with the reviewing court

petrev requirements

copies of the petition on the agency/parties

• concise statement of issues

• grounds relied upon

• true copy of the order appealed from, such material portions of the records therein

• supporting docs

• UNDER OATH; STATE MATERIAL DATES

one mr is allowed. if denied —

movan perfects appeal within the remaining period

• reckoned from receipt of denial (15d)

• REVERSED/MR: 15d from receipt to appeal.

review proceeding shall be filed

1. specified by statute, or

2. in the absence thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue (ROC)

GR: Findings of fact considered as final

XPN: specifically provided otherwise by law

record transmittal to the court

within 15d:

• OG/CTC of the entire records

• can be abridged by agreement of all

• MAY require/permit subsequent corrections

jurisdiction

cannot be conferred by the voluntary act of parties

jurisdiction determined by

law in force at the time of filing

allegations in the complaint

nature of the action

averments in the complaint/nature of relief sought

once vested by the allegations in the complaint

jurisdiction remains vested irrespective of WN the plaintiff is entitled to recover on all/some of the claims asserted therein.

notice and hearing required

law specifically requires

clear exception to its application → explain why

Affects status and liberty

when notice/hearing not required - CUERVA

criminal charge pending

undisputed fact

urgent reasons

exercise of discretion with no GAD

Valid exercise of police power

agency promulgates rules to govern future conduct

• XPN: UNLESS law provides otherwise

form and promulgation of judgement must

be incorporated by reference

comply with requirements and form

the decision should be a case where

• facts are accepted by both parties and easily determinable to the judge

• not any doctrinal implications that require extended discussion of the laws involve

factors affecting finality

• question of constitutionality

• history of statute

• nature of problem

• finality of decision

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 EAR doctrine is —

to enable the administrative agencies to correct themselves if they have committed an error.

PEPJS 🏃💨😴

1. The question involved is purely legal; 

2.  The administrative body is in estoppel; 

3. The act complained of is patently illegal;

4. There is an urgent need for judicial intervention; 

5. The claim involved is small;

GNSSQ 🥖🚬🗼

1. Grave and irreparable injury will be suffered; 

2. There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; 

3. Strong public interest is involved; 

4. The subject of the controversy is private law; 

The case involves a quo warranto proceeding;

DDAUR

1. The party was denied due process; 

2. The decision is that of a Department Secretary; 

3.  Resort to administrative remedies would be futile; 

4.  There is unreasonable delay; 

The action involves recovery of physical possession of public land

PL

1. The party is poor; and 

The law provides for immediate resort to the court.

Questioning the validity of a final and executory award cannot be done in a suit for mandamus as the validity of the final judgment cannot be assailed collaterally. 

UNLESS the ground of attack is lack of jurisdiction or irregularity in their entry which is apparent on the face of the record or because it is vitiated by fraud

• Vda. De Corpuz v. The Commanding General, Philippine Army

 Mandamus only lies to enforce the performance of a ministerial act, where —

The law defines the duty to be performed with such precision as to leave nothing to the officer’s judgment.

• Meralco Securities Corporation v. Savellano

Preliminary or ministerial acts performed by subordinate officials (such as a Secretary issuing a memorandum or an auditor preparing checks) are —

unauthorized and provide no basis for mandamus if the governing board with the actual authority has not yet formally approved the decision.

• Policarpio v. Phil, Veterans Board

GR: The Writ of Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of the DISCRETION of a public officer.

Where the law imposes upon a public officer the right and duty to exercise judgment, reference to any matter to which he is called upon to act, it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.

If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial.

• Blanco v. Board of Medical Examineres

Dulay v. Minister of Natural Resources

• The judgement of an administrative agency is on the merits; it’s as good as a judicial decision. 

• As long as there is decision making involved that protects the administrative rights of the parties, it is subject to res judicata.

Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. v. NLRC: 

GR: Res judicata is not applicable to summary proceedings that are not litigious in nature. 

XPN: res judicata applies to quasi-judicial functions such as labor proceedings.

Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board: A citizen is entitled to live in peace, without molestation from any official or authority.

If he is disturbed by a deportation proceeding → he has the unquestionable right to resort to the courts for his protection, either by the following, on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction:

1. A writ of habeas corpus; or

2. A writ of prohibition

• Grave abuse of discretion exists when a tribunal acts in an arbitrary or despotic manner due to passion or hostility, or when it evades a positive duty, refuses to act as required by law, or acts in a capricious or whimsical manner equivalent to lack of jurisdiction

Tze Sun Wong v. Wong, 743 SCRA 567 (2014)

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. 

While substantial evidence is an evidentiary threshold oftentimes left to the examination of the lower courts, the Court made an exception in the case at bar due to its resulting in a conflict in the appreciation of facts between the NLRC and CA. Thus, the court went on to sift through the factual determinations of the NLRC. 

INC SHIPMANAGEMENT, Inc. v. Moradas,

The SC respects the conclusions of specialized quasi-judicial agencies, such as the CTA, which are dedicated to specific subjects like taxation.

These findings are generally accorded due consideration and adherence by the courts, unless there is a showing of abuse or improvident exercise of authority.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. General Foods (Phils.), Inc.,

Rule 65 does not include a correction of its evaluation of the evidence. It is confined to issues of jurisdiction or GAD. 

• REVERSAL NOT GAD; mere variance in the evidentiary assessment does not warrant a full reassessment. 

GR: The NLRC’s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence, is entitled to great respect and even finality, 

• XPN: petitioner is able to show that it simply and arbitrarily disregarded evidence before it or had misapprehended evidence to such an extent as to compel a conclusion if such evidence had been properly appreciated

• Villaruel vs. NLRC

  
  

Purefoods Corporation V. NLRC

• NO APPEAL where or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the acts of respondent

An improvident resort to certiorari cannot be used as a tool to circumvent the right of (administrative agencies) to review and purge its decision of an oversight 

St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC:  No such thing as “appeal” from the NLRC.

NLRC decisions are final and executory.

• The proper remedy is to challenge such decisions through a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC → only for proving grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction

Eristingcol v. CA - estoppel by laches

GR: an objection to the court’s jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

• XPN: Tijam v Sibonghanoy In that case, the surety filed a motion to dismiss before the CA raising lack of jurisdiction only after 15 years since the case commenced in CFI Cebu. 

Eristingcol v. CA

Jurisdiction is based on the averments of the complaint AND the character of the relief sought. 

Deltaventures Resources Inc., v. Cabato (2000)

 Once acquired, jurisdiction is not lost until after the case is terminated.

• Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaints. 

• The subject matter of the third party claim is a mere incident of the labor case

Aranza et al v. BF Homes Inc.: What the petitioners seek to enforce are the obligations of BFHI as a subdivision developer.

NHA > HSRC > HLURB

• These are not pecuniary in nature although it could incidentally involve monetary considerations = no violation of SEC order suspending payments to creditors.

• If they sought to enforce a pecuniary demand, then it is the SEC who should have jurisdiction.

  • all actions for claims [demands of a pecuniary nature] warrant suspension of HLURB in favor of the SEC)

De Jesus v. Commission on Audit (2003)

Does the agency have jurisdiction? YES

• §2 (D), Art. IX of the 1987 CONST →The CoA shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts… pertaining to the government.

The duty to examine and audit government accounts and expenditure properly pertains to the COA.

Civil Service Commission v. Alfonso (2009)

⭐Although the BOR of NORSU is given the specific power under R.A. No. 9299 to discipline its employees, there is no showing that such power is exclusive.

• When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.

Machado v. Gatdula

No. Administrative bodies with quasi-judicial powers (like COSLAP) have limited jurisdiction defined strictly by their enabling laws.

• They cannot assume general authority over disputes—such as those involving private lands and the application of the Civil Code—which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Pag-Og v. CSC

Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.

Villanos v. Subido

A condemnatory decision in a criminal case, even if final, by itself alone, cannot serve as basis for a decision in an administrative case involving the same facts

PNR v. Domingo: Acquittal on reasonable doubt does not negate administrative liability or prior dismissal, since administrative cases are independent and require only substantial evidence.

XPN: applies only when acquittal is based on absolute lack of evidence amounting to a declaration of innocence, which is not present here.

Tan v. COMELEC

NO,,the administrative case against PET, taken cognizance of COMELEC, is in relation to the performance of his duties as an election canvasser and not as a city prosecutor.

• COMELEC must conduct the administrative inquiry to properly assess how its deputized officials performed their duties.

Ocampo v. OMB

Considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other.

Acuzar v. Jorolan⭐

• Criminal and administrative cases are separate and distinct from each other.

In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed whereas in administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required. Admin. cases may proceed independently of crim. proceedings.

Estate of Florencio Buan v. Pambusco

When the Admin Agency’s Ruling is supported by more than substantial evidence, it is binding upon the SC, which is not required to examine the proof de novo and determine for itself the preponderance of evidence. 

Maceda v. ERB

Order of testimony and general course of trial are within discretion of deciding body. In matters or rate/price fixing, ERB exercises a quasi-legislative functions → not bound by technical rules on evidence.

Corpuz v. Cuaderno

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where the terms of a statute imply that a judicial remedy is intended to be available even if administrative remedies have not been exhausted. 

• The Central Bank Charter acts as a special law governing the removal of its officials, and requiring an appeal to the Civil Service Commission would be a redundant "act of supererogation" since that body had already participated in the initial investigation
  

Quasha v. SEC

Because the deadline was imminent and the holidays further restricted the ability to seek administrative relief, the Court found it necessary to entertain the petition directly to determine if a restraining order was warranted to preserve the petitioner’s rights. 

• The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an absolute rule and may be bypassed when the administrative recourse does not offer a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

Republic v. SB

While exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required, estoppel by laches will justify an exception to the rule.

• PCGG only filed its motion 7 years after the initial petition. 

Garcia v. CA

The doctrine does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve, or interfere in, a controversy the jurisdiction over which is lodged initially with an administrative body

Smart Comms. v. NTC

EAR applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions

Estrada v. CA

️The “irreparable injury” exception only applies when the administrative remedy is clearly inadequate or futile.

Republic v. Gallo - EAR XPN

• XPN: Estoppel by deed → If this is not invoked at the prior time, this ground is deemed WAIVED and the court can take cognizance of the case and try it

Philippine Global Communications, Inc. v. Relova

Only applies when the administrative agency has the COMPETENCE TO ACT on the matter. If the issue involves a purely legal or jurisdictional question.

Philippine Global Communications, Inc. v. Relova -  interpreting the scope of Phil. Global’s legislative franchise.

A suit for declaratory relief is appropriate because the dispute involves a legal/jurisdictional question (interpreting a franchise) rather than a technical matter requiring administrative expertise.

Vidad v. RTC Negros O. BR. 42

While no prejudicial question strictly arises where one is a civil case and the other is an administrative proceeding, in the interest of good order, it behooves the court to suspend its action on the cases before it pending the final outcome of the administrative proceeding.