Administrative Law Reviewer
Administrative Law Reviewer
Administrative Law Reviewer
1 Banda v. Ermita, G.R. No. 166620, [April 20, 2010], 632 PHIL 501-545 4 Protecting the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees, Republic Act No. 6656, [June 10,
2 Administrative Code of 1987, Executive Order No. 292 , [July 25, 1987] 1988]
3 Malaria Employees and Workers Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. Romulo, G.R. No. 160093, [July 31, 5 Banda v. Ermita, supra at 3
2007], 555 PHIL 629-641 6 Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora, 360 SCRA 718 [2001]
SC ruled that the memorandum order was constitutional. According to the Court, a CHAPTER 4: POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES &CHAPTER 5:
public office may be created through any of the following modes, to wit, either (1) by DELEGATION OF POWERS
the Constitution (fundamental law), (2) by law (statute duly enacted by Congress), or
(3) by authority of law. In the instant case, the creation and establishment of LTFRB- SCOPE OF POWERS
-CAR Regional Office was made pursuant to the third mode - by authority of law. The 1. Express and Implied Powers - jurisdiction and powers of administrative
DOTC Secretary issued the assailed Memorandum and Department Orders pursuant agencies are measured and limited by the Constitution or law creating them
to Administrative Order No. 36 of the President. Furthermore, Presidential Decree or granting their powers, to those conferred expressly or by necessary
No.1772 gives the President the continuing power to reorganize the national implication.
government. Hence, The organic personnel of the DOTC-CAR were merely designated 2. Inherent Powers - It has no inherent powers, although implied powers may
to perform the additional duties and functions of an LTFRB Regional Office. To sometimes be spoken of as inherent. Thus, in the absence of any provision,
designate a public officer to another position may mean to vest him with additional administrative agencies do not possess the inherent power to punish for
duties while he performs the functions of his permanent office. contempt which has always been regarded as a necessary incident and
attribute of the courts.
EUGENIO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION [243 SCRA 196 (1995)]: Petitioner was 3. Quasi-Judicial Powers - official powers cannot be merely assumed by
the Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute. She applied for a administrative officers, nor can they be created by courts in the proper
Career Executive Service and a CESO rank which she was given CES eligibility, exercise of their judicial functions.
thereafter, she was recommended to the President for a CESO rank by the Career
Executive Service Board. However, CSC passed a resolution which resolved to CLASSIFICATION OF POWERS
streamline, reorganize and effect changes in its organizational structure which affected 1. Investigatory powers
the petitioner’s appointment, due to the abolishment of the Career Executive Service 2. Quasi-legislative or rule-making powers
Board. Thus, petitioner filed the petition with the SC to annul the resolution for being 3. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory powers; and
void and unconstitutional.
SC ruled that the CSC cannot abolish the CESB. According to the Court, The controlling DISCRETIONARY POWERS MINISTERIAL POWERS
fact is that the CESB was created in PD No. 1. It cannot be disputed, therefore, that as
the CESB was created by law, it can only be abolished by the legislature. The very essence of a discretionary A ministerial duty is one in respect to
power is that the person or persons which nothing is left to discretion. It is a
LARIN v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [280 SCRA 173 (1997]: President issued an exercising it may choose which of simple, definite duty arising under
executive order which mandates for the streamlining of the BIR. Under said order, some several courses will be followed. conditions admitted or proved to exist,
positions and functions are either abolished, renamed, decentralized or transferred to Discretion may be defined, when applied and imposed by law. A ministerial act has
other offices, while other offices are also created. The Excise Tax Service, of which the to public functionaries, as the power or been defined as one performed in
petitioner was the Assistant Commissioner, was one of those offices that was right conferred upon them by law of response to a duty which has been
abolished. Petitioner assailed the legality of EO No. 132 claiming that he was removed acting officially under certain positively imposed by law and its
as a result of the reorganization made in the BIR pursuant to E.O. No. 132. He claimed circumstances, according to the dictates performance required at a time and in a
that there is yet no law enacted by Congress which authorizes the reorganization by of their own judgment and conscience, manner or upon conditions specifically
the Executive Department of executive agencies, particularly the BIR. and not controlled by the judgment or designated, the duty to perform under
conscience of others. the conditions specified not being
SC ruled that the office of the petitioner falls under the category of Career Executive dependent upon the officer's judgment or
Service, which is appointed by the president and being a presidential appointee, it discretion.
follows that the president have the power to discipline the petitioner. Despite the fact
that the constitution grants the president the power to appoint and the inherent power
to remove, such power is not without limit. Under the Administrative code of 1987,
7 Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168461, 168463 & 168730, [September 1, 2005] 8 id.
MATEO v COURT OF APPEALS [247 SCRA 284 (1995)]: Edgar Sta. Maria, then BLAQUERA v ALCALA [266 SCRA 366, 425 (1998)]: Then Pres. Aquino issued AO
General Manager of MOWAD, was placed under preventive suspension before being 268 which granted each official and employee of the government the productivity
terminated by the BoD of MOWAD. He filed a special civil action for quo warranto and incentive benefits. It also provided that productivity incentive benefits shall be granted
mandamus. The Board moved to dismiss the case, on the ground of the RTC’s lack of only for the year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of agencies, including government boards
jurisdiction over disciplinary actions of government employees. RTC denied the motion. of government-owned or controlled corporations and financial institutions, are strictly
CA dismissed the Board’s petition. prohibited from granting productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 and future
years pending the result of a comprehensive study being undertaken by the Office of
The SC granted the petition and set aside the CA decision, saying that the CSC, not the Pres. The petitioners, who are officials and employees of several government
the RTC, had jurisdiction to entertain cases involving the dismissal of officers and departments and agencies, were paid incentive benefits for the year 1992. Then, on
employees under the Civil Service Law. The hiring and firing of employees of GOCCs Jan. 19, 1993, then Pres. Ramos issued AO 29 authorizing the grant of productivity
are governed by the provision of the Civil Service Law and Rules and Regulations. incentive benefits for the year 1992. Sec. 4 of AO 29 directed all departments, offices
RTCs have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of officers and and agencies which authorized payment of productivity incentive bonus for the year
employees covered by the Civil Service Law. Employees of GOCC with original charter 1992 in excess of P1, 000.00 to immediately cause the refund of the excess. In
fall under the jurisdiction of the CSC. compliance therewith, the heads of the departments or agencies of the government
concerned caused the deduction from petitioners’ salaries or allowances of the
CARINO v CAPULONG [222 SCRA 593 (1993)]: Private Respondent filed before the amounts needed to cover the alleged overpayments.
RTC, a petition for prohibition, certiorari and mandamus against the DECS (Department
of Education) to annul and set aside the closure order and to enjoin the former from SC ruled that the president’s issuance of AOs were valid and within the power of the
padlocking or closing of the school campus. president as the head of the government. Governmental power and authority are
CHAPTER V CASES: PALAEZ v THE AUDITOR GENERAL [G.R. NO. L-23725 (1965)]: The President of
the Philippines, purporting to act pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administrative
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v POEA [160 SCRA 533 (1998)]: A Chief Officer of a Code, issued Executive Orders Nos. 93 to 121, 124 and 126 to 129; creating thirty-
ship was killed in an accident in Japan. The widow filed a complaint for charges against three (33) municipalities enumerated in the margin. Petitioner Emmanuel Pelaez, as
the Eastern Shipping Lines with POEA, based on a Memorandum Circular No. 2, issued Vice President of the Philippines and as taxpayer, instituted the present special civil
by the POEA which stipulated death benefits and burial for the family of overseas action, for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction, against the Auditor General,
workers. ESL questioned the validity of the memorandum circular as violative of the to restrain him, as well as his representatives and agents, from passing in audit any
principle of non-delegation of legislative power. It contends that no authority had been expenditure of public funds in implementation of said executive orders and/or any
given the POEA to promulgate the said regulation; and even with such authorization, disbursement by said municipalities. Petitioner alleges that said executive orders are
the regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which, under the principle, null and void, upon the ground that said Section 68 has been impliedly repealed by
is not subject to delegation. Nevertheless, POEA assumed jurisdiction and decided the Republic Act No. 2370 and constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power.
case.
SC ruled that The authority to create municipal corporations is essentially legislative in
SC ruled that there was a valid delegation of powers, the authority to issue the said nature. It is obvious, however, that, whereas the power to fix such common boundary,
regulation is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. 797. It is true that in order to avoid or settle conflicts of jurisdiction between adjoining municipalities, may
legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. partake of an administrative nature — involving, as it does, the adoption of means and
What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not ways to carry into effect the law creating said municipalities — the authority to create
what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the municipal corporations is essentially legislative in nature. Although Congress may
legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to delegate to another branch of the Government the power to fill in the details in the
the delegate. With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to forestall a violation
laid down in a statute by “filling in” the details which the Congress may not have the of the principle of separation of powers, that said law: (a) be complete in itself — it must
opportunity or competence to provide. This is effected by their promulgation of what set forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate
are known as supplementary regulations, such as the implementing rules issued by the and (b) fix a standard — the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable
Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations have the force and — to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. The Court
effect of law. said that Section 68 of the RA does not meet these well settled requirements for a valid
delegation of the power to fix the details in the enforcement of a law. It does not
TATAD v DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [G.R. NO. 124360 (1997)]: The petitioner enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented by the President.
question the constitutionality of RA No. 8180 “An Act Deregulating the Downstream Oil
Industry and For Other Purposes.” The deregulation process has two phases: (a) the CHAPTER VI: QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWERS OR RULE-MAKING POWERS
transition phase and the (b) full deregulation phase through EO No. 372. The petitioner
claims that Sec. 15 of RA No. 8180 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power GENERALLY
to the President and the Sec. of Energy because it does not provide a determinate or ● Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature or
determinable standard to guide the Executive Branch in determining when to implement quasi-legislative (i.e. to make rules and regulations), and, in practical effect,
the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry, and the law does not provide any with the power to make law.
specific standard to determine when the prices of crude oil in the world market are ● However, the essential legislative functions may not be delegated to
considered to be declining nor when the exchange rate of the peso to the US dollar is administrative agencies and in this sense, it is said that administrative
considered stable. agencies have no legislative power and are precluded from legislating in the
strict sense.
SC ruled that Section 15 of RA 8180 did not violate the constitutional prohibition on
undue delegation of legislative power. The tests to determine the validity of delegation What may be granted to an administrative agency?
of legislative power are the completeness test and the sufficiency test. The ● It is the rule-making power to implement the law it is entrusted to enforce. It
completeness test demands that the law must be complete in all its terms and necessarily includes the power to amend, revise, alter, or repeal its rules and
Board of Commissioners v. De La Rosa (1991) reiterates the rule that for a NOTICE AND HEARING,
warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration to be valid, it ● When required:
must be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation. 1. When the law specifically requires it.
2. When it affects a person’s status and liberty
A warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration for purposes
of investigation only is null and void for being unconstitutional ● When not required:
1. Urgent reasons
WHAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS? 2. Discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an
● While [Admin. Agencies are] free from the rigidity of certain procedural undisputed fact [Suntay v. People (1957)]
requirements, they cannot entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and 3. If it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse.
essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an 4. When it involves rules to govern future conduct of persons or
administrative character [Ang Tibay v. CIR (1940)] enterprises, unless law provides otherwise.
● A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked 5. In the valid exercise of police power.
at any time directly or collaterally by means of a separate action or proceeding
where it is invoked. [Garcia v. Molina (2010)] ADMINISTRATIVE RES JUDICATA
● In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process lies simply in the ● When it applies
opportunity to explain one’s side or to seek reconsideration of the action or ○ The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
ruling complained of. What is proscribed is the absolute lack of notice or proceedings and not to the exercise of purely administrative
hearing. [Office of the Ombudsman v. Coronel (2006)] functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and summary
in nature; hence, res judicata does not apply. [Nasipit Lumber Co. v.
CARDINAL PRIMARY RIGHTS NLRC (1989)]
1. Right to a hearing (Includes the right of a party to present his own case and
submit evidence in support thereof) REQUISITES OF RES JUDICATA
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented 1. The former judgment must be final;
3. Decision must be supported by evidence. 2. It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
4. Evidence must be substantial. matter and the parties;
FORUM SHOPPING ANG TIBAY v CIR [69 PHIL 635 (1940)]: Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang
● There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one Tibay, a leather company which supplies the Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in of leather, Toribio caused the layoff of a number of his employees. However, the
another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts National Labor Union, Inc. (NLU) questioned the validity of said lay off as it averred that
but also in connection with litigation commenced in the courts while an the said employees laid off were members of NLU while no members of the rival labor
administrative proceeding is pending, in order to defeat administrative union (National Worker’s Brotherhood) were laid off. NLU claims that NWB is a
processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a company dominated union and Toribio was merely busting NLU. The case reached the
favorable court ruling. Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) where Toribio and NWB won. Eventually, NLU went
● The test for determining whether a party has violated the rule against forum to the Supreme Court invoking its right for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered
shopping is where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with NLU. The Solicitor General, arguing for the
the action under consideration. [Fortich v. Corona (1998), citing First CIR, filed a motion for reconsideration.
Philippine International Bank v. CA (1996)]
● The rule against forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, SC ruled that The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are
not to administrative cases. [Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodriguez (2010)] specifically stated in the law of its creation (CA No 103). It is more administrative board
than part of the Integrated Judicial system of the nation. It not only exercises judicial or
CHAPTER VII CASES: quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and
employees, but its function is more comprehensive and extensive. It has jurisdiction
DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v ESTEVA [509 SCRA 332, 369-370 (2006)]: Anent the over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question,
first assignment of error, petitioner argues that judicial review under Rule 65 of the matter, controversy, or dispute arising between and/or affecting employers and
revised Rules of Civil Procedure is limited only to issues concerning want or excess or employees or laborers and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers and regulate
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy relations between them subject to and in accordance with the provision of CA 103.
designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not mere errors of judgment. It is the
contention of petitioner that the NLRC properly assumed jurisdiction over the parties For administrative bodies, due process can be complied with by observing the
and subject matter of the instant case. The errors assigned by the respondents in their following:
Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals do not pertain to the jurisdiction of 1. The right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or
the NLRC; they are rather errors of judgment supposedly committed by the the NLRC, affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof.
in its Resolution, dated 29 February 2000, and are thus not the proper subject of a 2. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to
petition for certiorari. Petitioner also posits that the Petition for Certiorari filed by adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the
respondents with the Court of Appeals raised questions of fact that would necessitate tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
a review by the appellate court of the evidence presented by the parties before the
PISON-ARCEO v. NLRC [344 PHIL. 723, 736 (1997)]: This is a labor case for illegal SC ruled that The Department of Labor continued to use the term "supervisory unions"
dismissal, reinstatement and payment of backwages against Hacienda Lanutan despite the demise of the legal definition of "supervisor" apparently because these were
(unregistered name) with a corporation name of Pison-Arceo Agricultural and the unions of front line managers which were then allowed as a result of the statutory
Development Corporation. At the Labor Arbiter, what was impleaded were Hacienda grant of the right of self-organization under the Industrial Peace Act. Had the
Lanutan (like an alias or nickname) and Jose Edmundo Pison, the administrator of the Department of Labor seen fit to similarly ban unions of top and middle managers which
Hacienda. LR decided in favor of the workers. NLRC when it affirmed the decision of may have been formed following the dictum in Caltex, it obviously would have done so.
the LR, it used Pison-Arceo Agricultural instead of Hacienta Lanutan which is what was Yet it did not, apparently because no such unions of top and middle managers really
initially impleaded. For this reason, Corporation assails that they were deprived of due then existed.
process and NLRC acted in excess of its jurisdiction (no proper service of summons).
DELFIN v. INCIONG [192 SCRA 151 (1990)]: 136 employees of Atlantic Container
SC held that NLRC did not exceed its jurisdiction and that Corporation was not deprived Corporation filed a complaint against their employer for not executing the contents of
of its day in court because when Hacienda Lanutan was impleaded, Corporation as its their collective bargaining agreement. However, upon trial, it was discovered that the
sole owner was in fact also impleaded. Hacienda Lanutan is an arm of the Corporation petitioners were the ones who did not follow the agreement as they continually held
(petitioner). The SC stressed that in quasi-judicial proceedings, procedural rules strikes and asked for an increase in salary. The CIR was abolished during the pendency
governing service of summons are not strictly construed. Substantial compliance of the case and it was passed to the NLRC. The NLRC ruled that 86 out of the 136
thereof is sufficient. petitioners be reinstated in the position. The petitioners appealed which was
subsequently denied. The petitioners then filed the same complaint to the Minister of
PASCUAL v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS [280 SCRA 345 (1969)]: Salvador Labor, Amado Inciong, who dismissed the complaint on the following grounds: 1) that
Gatbonton and Enriqueta Gatbonton filed an administrative case against Arsenio the charge subject of the petition is barred by res judicata; 2) that petitioners’ cause of
Pascual Jr. for alleged immorality. At the initial hearing thereof, Gatbonton’s counsel
SC ruled that the withdrawal of the appeal taken to the President of the Philippines is JUDICIAL REVIEW
tantamount to not appealing at all thereto. Such withdrawal is fatal, because the appeal • GR: Judicial review may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses, except
to the President is the last step he should take in an administrative case. when the Constitution requires or allows it. Thus, a law may provide that the
decision of an administrative agency shall be final and not reviewable and it
FORTICH v CORONA [G.R. NO. 131457 (1998)]: The Office of the President (OP) would still not offend due process.
issued a decision converting a large parcel of land from agricultural land to agro- • However, Sec. 1, par. 2, Art. VIII of the Constitution, which provides that
industrial/institutional area. Because of this, a group of farmer-beneficiaries staged a judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
hunger strike in front of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Compound. The controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
strike generated a lot of publicity and even a number of Presidential Candidates (for and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
the upcoming 1998 elections) intervened on behalf of the farmers. Because of this amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
“blackmail”, the OP re-opened the case and through Deputy Executive Secretary instrumentality of the Government, clearly means that judicial review of
Renato C. Corona issued the so-called, “politically motivated”, “win-win” resolution, administrative decisions cannot be denied the courts when there is an
substantially modifying its decision after it had become final and executory. allegation of grave abuse of discretion. [NACHURA]
• It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-
SC ruled that the “win-win” resolution, issued after the original decision had not become judicial or legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts to
final and executory, had any legal effect. The rules and regulations governing appeals scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even
to the Office of the President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order though no right of review is given by statute. xxx Judicial review is proper in
No. 18. In the said order, it was stated that decisions, resolutions or orders of the OP case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or
shall become final after the lapse of 15 days from receipt of a copy by the parties and collusion. [San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC (1975)]
only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. In the case at hand, when the
OP issued the Order on June 23, 1997 declaring the decision of March 29, 1996 final RATIONALE:
and executory, as no one has seasonably filed an MR, the said Office had lost its (1) There is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such
jurisdiction to re-open the case. agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review
is given by statute;
SSS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v BATHAN-VELASCO [G.R. NO. 108765 (1999)]: (2) The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its
Private respondent, filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for certification jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties;
of election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank (3) It is that part of the checks and balances which restricts the separation of
and filed employees of SSS. The Bureau ordered a certification election to conducted powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. [St. Martin’s Funeral
in its main office and regional branches. The petitioner was one of the contending Homes v. NLRC (1998)]
parties in the elections. Elections were held, and private respondent won. Petitioner
filed an election protest with the Bureau to annul the certification election but it was N.B. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that the Court of Appeals shall have
denied. Thereafter, petitioner brought the case to the SSS Regional Office, however, appellate jurisdiction over awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
the respondent denied the election protest and declared the private respondent the authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
winner.
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Monetary Board is a quasi-judicial agency
SC ruled that the petitioner did not exhaust all administrative remedies before going to exercising quasi-judicial powers or functions. The Court of Appeals has appellate
the Court. The rule is well-entrenched that a party must exhaust all administrative jurisdiction over final judgments, orders, resolutions or awards of the BSP Monetary
remedies before resorting to the courts. The premature invocation of the intervention Board on administrative complaints against banks and quasi-banks.
of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action. This rule would not only give the
administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly, but would Nothing in R.A. 7653 or in R.A. 8791 explicitly allows an appeal of the decisions of the
also prevent the unnecessary and premature resort to courts. In the case at hand, BSP Monetary Board to the Court of Appeals. However, this shall not mean that said
petitioner failed to take an appeal from the order of the Director of Bureau of Labor decisions are beyond judicial review. [United Coconut Planters Bank v. E. Ganzon, Inc.,
Relations to the Secretary of Labor. (2009)]
KILUSANG BAYAN v DOMINGUEZ [G.R. NO. 85439 & 91927 (1992)]: In this case, SC ruled the Court can take cognizance of the petition despite Roxas’ failure to exhaust
the SC ruled that the suit brought by KBMBPM is not premature due to non-exhaustion administrative remedies. According to the Court, despite the court has no jurisdiction
of administrative remedies, on the ground that KBMBPM should have petitioned directly to rule on the reclassification of land from agricultural to non-agricultural – DAR’s failure
the Secretary of Agriculture to reverse the Order stripping the KBMBPM Board of its to observe due process does not give the court the power to adjudicate over petitioner’s
authority. According to the SC, as to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the rule application for land conversion. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court
is well-settled that this requirement does not apply where the respondent is a to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is
department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. DAR is in a better
approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him. This doctrine of qualified position to resolve petitioner's application for conversion, being primarily the agency
political agency ensures speedy access to the courts when most needed. There was possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.
no need then to appeal the decision to the office of the President; recourse to the courts
could be had immediately. Moreover, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative PIMENTEL, JR. v SENATE COMMITTEE [G.R. NO. 187714 (2011)]: Senator Madrigal
remedies also yields to other exceptions, suchas when the question involved is purely introduced a Resolutio, which directed the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the
legal, as in the instant case, or where the questioned act is patently illegal, arbitrary or alleged double insertion of P200 million by Senator Manny Villar into the C5 Extension
oppressive. Such is the claim of petitioners which, as hereinafter shown, is correct. Project. After the election of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile as Senate President, the Ethics
Committee was reorganized, but the Minority failed to name its representatives to the
Committee, prompting a delay in the investigation. Thereafter, the Senate adopted the
SC ruled that the Doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply in this case, hence, the
petition is premature. The Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case,
which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the case
is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge
of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of
fact are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding
before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the
proper jurisdiction of the court. Tthe power of judicial review is not so much power as it
is a duty imposed on this Court by the Constitution and that we would be remiss in the
performance of that duty if we decline to look behind the barriers set by the principle of
separation of powers.