ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

(Outline)
Prepared By: Atty. Pepito A. Manriquez

I. GOVERNING LAWS/RULES –

A – RULE XIV – (DISCIPLINE, Sections 1 to 58) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book
V of Executive Order 292 (The Administrative Code of 1987).

B – Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 17 of September 15, 2005 amending Rule III
of Administrative Order No. 07 of April 10, 1990.

C – Section 63 of R.A. 7160, The Local Government Code of 1991 for Elective Local
Government Officials.

D – Book VII (Administrative Procedure) – of Executive Order 292 (The Administrative

Code of 1987).

NB. (a) Unless there are express provisions contained in their respective rules of
procedures, the Rules under No. A hereof (Rule XIV, Section 1-58 of the Omnibus Rules
etc.) are supplementarily applied, even in the Office of the Ombudsman (Section 1,
Paragraph (h) of Omnibus Administrative Code No. 17).

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of the foregoing laws/rules to govern the conduct
of the proceedings in disciplinary Administrative Investigation, the Office of the
Ombudsman has a concurrent jurisdiction over all administrative investigation upon all
public officers/officials in the government (Section 21, RA 6770) except those officials
who are: (a) removable by impeachment; (b) members of the judiciary; and (c)
members of Congress.

The reason why the Ombudsman is given such power and authority is stated by the
Supreme Court in the case of Vasquez vs. Alinio et. al. G.R. No. 198813-14 April 8,
1997, when it said:

“XXX to insulate the said Office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able
to penetrate judge’s and fiscal’s offices and others involved in the prosecution of erring
public officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay
or dismiss investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public
officers.”

II. FILING/INSTITUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT –

1. OMBUDSMAN a – by a written complaint under oath accompanied by

affidavits of witness and other
evidences – must also be accompanied by a Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping;

b – Upon order by the Ombudsman or by his Deputies on his

own initiative; or

c – Upon the basis of a complaint originally filed as criminal,

complaint or request
for assistance (Sec. 3, Rule III).

2. OTHER OFFICES Preliminary investigation – (1) Fact finding investigation will be

conducted by a
committee which may recommend the filing of the case and
prepare the formal
charge – requiring the respondent to file his/her answer within
72 hours.

(2) Fact-Finding Investigation – may also be conducted by the

office of the

1
 Ombudsman if the complaint is not sufficient in form or in
substance pursuant to
Section 13, R.A. 6770).

After such fact-finding investigation, the complaint may

be dismissed
if no probable cause is generated.

If there is, (a) Preliminary Investigation may be conducted

on the criminal
aspect of the case, and (b) Administrative Investigation will be
pursued on
the administrative aspect pursuant to Administrative order No.
17, after their
corresponding docket numbers are duly assigned.

III. PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION –

Issuance and nature of Preventive Suspensions differ according to the governing laws
observed by the issuing
Agency.
1. By the Office of the Ombudsman – Section 24 R.A. 6770 and Section 9 Ombudsman
Administrative Order No. 17.

A – Without pay if in the JUDGMENT of the Ombudsman or his proper Deputy, the evidence
of guilt is strong (so no hearing is necessary) to determine whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong.

B – Shall continue until the case is terminated but not to exceed six (6) months.

2. By any other agency pursuant to Civil Service Laws – i.e. Section 26, Rule XIV, Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987).

A – If there are reasons to believe that respondent is guilty of charges which would
warrant his renewal from the service, it is submitted that there must be a hearing before
preventive suspension order may be issued.

B – Not more than NINETY (90) days.

3. By the PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, or MUNICIPAL MAYOR upon elective Local Government

Unit (LGU) Officials pursuant to Section 63, R.A. 7160, The Local Government Code of
1991.

A – 1) When the issues are joined; 2) Evidence of guilt is strong; and 3) Given the gravity
of the offense, there is great probability that the continued stay in office by the
respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of
the records and other evidence. (All these elements are to be determined in a hearing).

B – Not beyond SIXTY (60) days except when charged with more than one (1) offense
where NINETY (90) days preventive suspension may be imposed – (Mayor Binay Case of
Makati City).

4. By the Courts, Sandiganbayan for high ranking accused, courts for low ranking
accused) under Section 13, R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act –

A – When the accused is charged under a valid information.

B – Preventive suspension of an elective public officer under Section 13 of R.A. 3019
should be limited to ninety (90) days (Delosa vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409).
C – Issued upon motion by the prosecution, hence there is a hearing despite the fact that
the issuance of such preventive suspension is mandatory upon the court.

IV. EVIDENCE –

Substantial evidence (testimonial / affidavits of witnesses) all documents must be

without acted – certified true copies – which may be attached to the position paper.
2
V. DECISIONS IN DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION

A – Rule IV – Section 23 (22) may be applied in the imposition of the penalties

(principal and accessory penalties)
unless so provided by the agencies’ rules of procedures.
B – Appeals to the higher level of the same agency has to be resorted to in order
that the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies is complied with, except when
judicial intervention is needed – before final order or decision is issued (Certiorari under
Rule 65, Rules of Court).
C – APPEAL –
1. Chapter IV – Administrative Appeal in Contested Cases. (Sec. 19-26)
2. Appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court - (Fabian vs.
Desierto).
3. Supreme Court on question of Law under Rule 45, Rules of Court, Petition for
Review on Certiorari.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Outline by: Atty. Pepito A. Manriquez

I. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – a) Definition – It is that branch of public law which fixes the
organization of the government, determines the administrative authority of the officers
who execute the laws and indicate to the individuals remedies for the violation of their
rights.

(b) Sources of the administrative law –

1) Statute of legislation –passed by congress;
2) Decisions/Interpretations made by the courts;
3) Rules and regulations made by the administrative agency or body charged of
implementing the law;
4) Decisions/interpretations made by the administrative body/agency tasked to
implement the law;
(c) Purpose – its chief concern is the protection of private rights.
(d) Function – to make the government machinery work well and in an orderly manner.

II. ADMINISTRATIVE BODY

(a) Definition – A body composed of one or more officials designated to carry on certain
business of the government.
(b) Types of administrative bodies –
- Those set-up to function when the government is –
1. Offering some gratuity grant or social privilege;
2. Seeking to carry on certain business of the government;
3. Regulate business affected with public interest;
4. Exercising police power to regulate private business;
5. Adjusting individual controversies because of strong individual serial policy
6. Settling of bodies where the government becomes a private party (COA, GSIS)
(c) Powers of administrative bodies/agencies
3
1. Ministerial Powers
2. Discretionary Powers
3. Determinative Powers
a. directing powers c. enabling powerse. summary powers
b. dispensing powers d. examining powers

4. Quasi-Legislative Powers/Ordinance Powers/Rule-Making Powers

(a) Requisites for the validity of administrative rules and regulations
(a-1) It must have been issued under authority of the law (Phil. Apparels
Workers Union vs. NLRC, 106 SCRA 444);
(a-2) Must be within the scope and purview of the law (Olsen vs. Aldenese,
43 Phil 259);
(a-3) It must be reasonable (Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-
10979, June 30, 1969)
(a-4) Must be published in the Official Gazette and newspaper of general
circulation. (Tañada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446);
(a-5) Must be registered with the UP Law Center (Book VII – Chapter 2,
Section 3), Exec. Order No. 292 (Adm. Code of 1987);

(b) Exceptions
(b-1) Those which are merely internal in nature regulating personnel of the
agency and not the public;
(b-2) Letters of instruction issued by an administrative superior to be followed
by subordinates; and
(b-3) Instruction covering workload, wearing of uniforms, etc.

(c) Categories of rules and regulations that may be promulgated by an

administrative body/agency –
(c-1) Those that are intended to supply the details of a legislation
(c-2) Those that are intended to construe or interpret the particulars law or
statute being enforced;
(c-3) Those that are intended to determine some facts or state of things from
which the enforcement of the law shall depend;

5. Quasi-Judicial Power
(a) Definition – a term applied to the action, discretion, etc. of a public
administrative office or body required to investigate facts, or ascertain facts;
hold hearings; and draw conclusions from them, as basis for their official action,
and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature (Lupangco vs. Court of
Appeals 160 SCRA 846).

(b) Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

(b-1) Definition – It means that judicial action of a case is deferred pending the
determination of some issues which properly belong to an administrative body
because their expertise, specialized skills, knowledge and resources as required
for the resolution of the factual or non-legal matters. (Reduction Expertise,
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 420)
(b-2) Substantial Evidence – (Summary procedure) – Such evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is the
quality of evidence necessary for a court to affirm a decision of an administrative
body.

(c) Trial type hearing –

Trial type hearing of full-blown hearing is needed when adjudicative fact is to be
established (Mabuhay Textile Mills Corporation vs. Ongpin, 141 SCRA
437).
(c-1) Adjudicative fact

(d) Types of administrative investigation

(d-1) Determinative – the purpose is to determine the facts that would qualify
the positive application of the law being enforced, administered and/or
implemented.
(d-2) Disciplinary administrative investigation – (next topic, it is being
separately treated under Administrative Adjudication).

4
III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (DOCTRINE OF)

(a) Definition – where the law provides for the remedies against the actions of an
administrative board, body, or officer, relief to court against which action can be sought
only after exhausting all remedies provided for –
(b) Purpose – to compel the parties to avail themselves of all administrative remedies on hand
and avoid long, tedious, and expensive court litigation.
(c) Ripeness of the case for Judicial Intervention – it may occur at any stage of the
investigation when grave abuse of discretion, irregularities prejudicial to the interest of
either of the parties needs court interference.
(d) Exceptions to Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies –

1. When no administrative review is provided by law (Hodges vs. Municipality of

Iloilo, 19 SCRA 28)
2. When the issue is purely legal (Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 17O SCRA 256)
3. When the party invoking the doctrine is guilty of estoppel (Sunga vs. NLRC, 173
SCRA 336)
4. When there is unreasonable delay of official action that will prejudice the complaint
(Sunga vs. NLRC)
5. When the amount involved is too small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive
to the complaint (Cipriano vs. Marcelino, 43 SCRA 291).
6. When there is no plain adequate and speedy remedy available (Tiangco vs.
Franching, 9 SCRA 125)
7. When there is “qualified political agency” (Ventura vs. Garucho, 190 SCRA 154)
8. In land case, when the land in question is a private land (Boladjay vs. Castillo, 11
SCRA 1064)
9. When it will result into the nullification of the claim or cause of action (Gravador vs.
Mañigo, 20 SCRA 742)
10.When there is official action demanded by public interest (Alzate v. Aldena,
February 19, 1968)

IV. REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS BY THE COURT –

As a general rule, the findings of facts made by an administrative body deserves to be

respected and be considered as final except when such finding is tainted with
1-fraud; 2-error of law; 3-gross abuse of discretion

Remedies/Course of Action –
1-Question of facts – final
2-Question of Law –Rule 45, Rules of Court on petitions for Review or Certiorari
3-Mixed Questions of Facts and Laws –Court of Appeals, Rule 43, Rules of Court.
(a) Brandies Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts –
N.B. If a decision has already been handed down, the aforecited remedy may be availed
of; otherwise, Rule 65 Rules of Court by means of Certiorari as a special action grounded
on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

V. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION – ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987 (E.O. 292) –

Date of Effectivity –

(a) November 24, 1989 - R.A. 6682 -

(b) Seven (7) Books in the Administrative Code of 1987 –
1-Sovereignty and General Administration 5-Constitutional Commission
2-Distribution of Powers in the Government 6-National Government
Budgeting
3-Office of the President 7-Administrative Procedure
4-The Executive Branch