Administrative law prelim

Administrative law prelim

Instruction; Each question is worth 5%.The passing mark is 75%, hence you need to answer correctly at least 15 questions. Answer responsively and briefly. If you know the case, cite and you get an extra 3%.

1. State whether the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies apply in the following cases:

            a. The Housing Land Use Regulatory board issues a memorandum stating that effective January 1, 2006, all housing units with unpaid premium for two years, shall be deemed foreclosed and shall be sold at public auction. John’s house is affected, and he questions the validity of said memorandum.

            b.The Kapisanan ng mga Konserbatibong Linang, a non-governmental organization which monitors the flooding incidents in Quezon City, files a complaint before the RTC to cancel all Timber Licensing Agreements issued for the past five years, as they caused the flash floods. They questioned the DENR’s passivity and inaction on the matter, despite the pendency of the administrative complaints, which they filed in the said office.

            c. The DAR declared John’s riceland as covered under the Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to PD 27.John received the valuation, which he objected as it was very low. The DAR informed him that he can appeal to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform about the matter. John did not take heed. He filed his complaint directly to the Regional Trial Court.

            d. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform ruled that the coverage of X’s land under agrarian reform was validly undertaken by the DAR Provincial Director. Not agreeing thereto, he filed his petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary.

            e. Jose Mabini, the principal of Olingan Elementary School was dismissed and ousted by the Superintendent of Schools by reason of abuse of authority, gross immorality and corruption. He was then replaced by Maria Bonifacio.He filed a quo warranto proceeding before the RTC.

2. Aquilino Larin was appointed as Assistant Commissioner in 1995.He was charged with malversation before the Sandiganbayan and was convicted. Meanwhile the BIR Commissioner furnished the President of the copy of the Sandiganbayan decision. The president then organized a committee and on the basis of the committee’s recommendation, dismissed Larin from the service.

            Larin appealed his Sandiganbayan conviction to the Supreme Court, which reversed the conviction.

            Larin wrote a letter to the president praying that he should be reinstated with backwages, as the Supreme Court acquitted him of the criminal charge.

            The president denied his prayer. She argued that the criminal case is different from the administrative case, and besides, pursuant to her control powers, she had already reorganized the bureaus and appointed another assistant commissioner in Larin’s stead. The president emphasized that Larin has no more place in the bureaucracy.

            You are hired as Larin’s counsel, how would you argue his cause for reinstatement.

3. At the height of an oil crisis, the Energy Regulatory Board approved without any hearing the application of SHELL, PETRON and GRANEX to increase oil prices to 20%, on the basis of the unrebutted applications filed by the said companies. The people complained as said increases spelled in capital letters their hardships. Senator Pangmasa filed a petition in Court to stop the increases, reasoning that the same are violations of administrative due process, as no hearing, consultations, or even an opportunity to be heard was even made.

            Comment on the validity of the contention of Senator Pangmasa.

4. The administrative Code provides for a definition of some of the president’s powers such as the ordinance and residual powers. What is your understanding regarding these powers?

5.What do you mean by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? State at least five exceptions to the doctrine.

6.Distinguish quasi-judicial power from quasi-legislative power.

7.State the requirements of procedural due process in administrative investigations.

8. [G.R. No. 86695.  September 3, 1992.]The Iloilo State College of Fisheries (henceforth ISCOF) through its Pre-qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (henceforth PBAC) caused the publication in the November 25, 26, 28, 1988 issues of the Western Visayas Daily an Invitation to Bid for the construction of the Micro Laboratory Building at ISCOF. The notice announced that the last day for the submission of pre-qualification requirements (PRE C-1) ** was December 2, 1988, and that the bids would be received and opened on December 12, 1988, 3 o'clock in the afternoon. 1

Petitioners Maria Elena Malaga and Josieleen Najarro, respectively doing business under the name of the B.E. Construction and Best Built Construction, submitted their pre-qualification documents at two o'clock in the afternoon of December 2, 1988. Petitioner Jose Occeña submitted his own PRE-C1 on December 5, 1988. All three of them were not allowed to participate in the bidding because their documents were considered late, having been submitted after the cut-off time of ten o'clock in the morning of December 2, 1988.

On December 12, 1988, the petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo against the chairman and members of PBAC in their official and personal capacities. The plaintiffs claimed that although they had submitted their PRE-C1 on time, the PBAC refused without just cause to accept them. As a result, they were not included in the list of pre-qualified bidders, could not secure the needed plans and other documents, and were unable to participate in the scheduled bidding.

In their prayer, they sought the resetting of the December 12, 1988 bidding and the acceptance of their PRE-C1 documents. They also asked that if the bidding had already been conducted, the defendants be directed not to award the project pending resolution of their complaint.

On the same date, Judge Lodrigio L. Lebaquin issued a restraining order prohibiting PBAC from conducting the bidding and awarding the project.

On December 16, 1988, the defendants filed a motion to lift the restraining order on the ground that the Court was prohibited from issued restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and preliminary mandatory injunctions by P.D. 1818. 

The decree reads pertinently as follows:

Section 1.         No Court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary infrastructure project, or a mining, fishery, forest or other natural resource development project of the government, or any public utility operated by the government, including among others public utilities for the transport of the goods and commodities, stevedoring and arrastre contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity or government official from proceeding with, or continuing the execution or implementation of any such project, or the operation of such public utility, or pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.

QUESTION: Is the issuance of the TRO by the Judge improper? Explain your answer.

9. [G.R. No. 122338.  December 29, 1995.] In this original petition for habeas corpus, the wife and children of convicted felon Wilfredo Sumulong Torres pray for his immediate release from prison on the ground that the exercise of the President's prerogative under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code to determine the occurrence, if any, of a breach of a condition of a pardon in violation of pardonee's right to due process and the constitutional presumption of innocence, constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Of two counts of estafa Torres was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila some time before 1979. These convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The maximum sentence would expire on November 2, 2000. On April 18, 1979, a conditional pardon was granted to Torres by the President of the Philippines on condition that petitioner would "not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines."  5 Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was consequently released from confinement.  6

On May 21, 1986, the Board of Pardons and Parole resolved to recommend to the President the cancellation of the conditional pardon granted to Torres because Torres had been charged with twenty counts of estafa before, and convicted of sedition by, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. On September 8, 1986, the President canceled the conditional pardon of Torres. On October 10, 1986, then Secretary of Justice Neptali A. Gonzales issued "by authority of the President" an Order of Arrest and Recommitment  against petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly arrested and confined in Muntiniupa to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. Torres impugned the validity of the Order of Arrest and Recommitment thru a petition for habeas corpus before the Supreme Court, alleging that the Secretary of Justice and the President gravely abused their discretion in ordering his arrest without due notice and hearing.

            Question: Is the contention of  Wilfredo Sumulong Torres correct? Explain your answer.

10. [G.R. No. 87977.  March 19, 1990.]Can the Office of the Solicitor General represent a public officer or employee in the preliminary investigation of a criminal action against him?  Would your ruling be the same in a civil action for damages against him? Explain your answer.

11. [G.R. No. L-23523.  November 18, 1967.]The record shows that on March 7, 1963, Guadalupe C. Adaza, then Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Norte, instituted Administrative Case No. 3 against Roberto P. Poculan who was then serving on his first term of office as municipal mayor of Rizal, Zamboanga del Norte, charging the latter with abuse of authority, oppression and maladministration. Basis for the charge was an incident that took place on February 23, 1963, during which, allegedly, the mayor, "with grave abuse of authority and taking advantage of his position, with intent to oppress, did then and there, wilfully, illegally, and feloniously, assault, maul and attack with the use of his fist and a home-made gun, locally known as `paliuntod,' one ANTONIO ARAPOC," inflicting upon him physical injuries which caused his death two days later.

On the same day, Governor Adaza issued Executive Order No. 1, ordering the suspension from office of Mayor Poculan for thirty days, pursuant to sections 2188-2189 of the Revised Administrative Code. After the lapse of said period of suspension, however, the mayor was reinstated.

At the close of Mayor Poculan's term of office, the administrative case against him was still pending, the Provincial Board having failed to act upon it to its finality.

Then came the 1963 local elections. Poculan was re-elected mayor of the municipality of Rizal. Felipe Azcuna was elected governor, replacing Adaza, and there was also a change in the composition of the Provincial Board.

The new members of the Provincial Board proceeded to investigate the administrative case against Poculan, and on February 14, 1964, rendered decision and passed Resolution No. 42-A, ordering his suspension for a period of two years. The decision was appealed by the Mayor to the President on March 6 of that year. On March 13, the Provincial Governor issued Executive Order No. 7 supplementing Resolution No. 42-A, designating the Vice Mayor to act as Mayor of Rizal. On the same day also, the governor directed the commander of the Philippine Constabulary unit detailed in the province to serve his order upon the suspended Mayor.

Meanwhile, Mayor Poculan had filed with the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte an action for Prohibition, later amended, for Certiorari and Mandamus, with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction, to restrain the Provincial Board from enforcing its resolution. The petition, however, was dismissed on the ground, among others, that it was not the proper remedy.

Whereupon, Mayor Poculan filed the present action for Injunction, praying once more that the Provincial Board be restrained from enforcing its order of suspension. As prayed for, a preliminary injunction writ was issued at the commencement of the proceedings. The case was submitted for decision on the pleadings. On July 3, 1964, the court, finding the petition to be meritorious, rendered judgment declaring null and void the Board's resolution suspending the Mayor, on the principle that his reelection had purged him of the administrative charges filed against him during his first term of office. Motion for reconsideration of the decision having been denied, the Provincial Board filed the instant petition.

The issue raised in this appeal is whether or not the Provincial Board of Zamboanga del Norte may proceed with the administrative investigation of reelected mayor Roberto P. Poculan for misconduct, allegedly committed by the latter during his prior term of office.

Resolve said issue.

12.  [G.R. No. 83578.  March 16, 1989.]Powers of the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force. — The Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force, hereinafter referred to as Task Force, shall have the following powers and authority:

a)         Motu proprio or upon complaint, to investigate and prosecute all dollar salting activities, including the overvaluation of imports and the undervaluation of exports;

b)         To administer oaths, summon persons or issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts, records, statements of accounts, agreements, and other as may be necessary in the conduct of investigation;

c)         To appoint or designate experts, consultants, state prosecutors or fiscals, investigators and hearing officers to assist the Task Force in the discharge of its duties and responsibilities; gather data, information or documents; conduct hearings, receive evidence, oath oral and documentary, in all cases involving violation of foreign exchange laws or regulations; and submit reports containing findings and recommendations for consideration of appropriate authorities;

d)         To punish direct and indirect contempts with the appropriate penalties therefor under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court; and To adopt such measures and take such actions as may be necessary to implement this Decree.

xxx                    xxx                    xxx

"f.        After due investigation but prior to the filing of the appropriate criminal charges with the fiscal's office or the courts as the case may be, to impose a fine and/or administrative sanctions as the circumstances warrant, upon any person found committing or to have committed acts constituting blackmarketing or salting abroad of foreign exchange, provided said person voluntarily admits the facts and circumstances constituting the offense and presents proof that the foreign exchange retained abroad has already been brought into the country.

Thereafter, no further civil or criminal action may be instituted against said person before any other judicial regulatory or administrative body for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1883.

The amount of the fine shall be determined by the Chairman of the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force and paid in Pesos taking into consideration the amount of foreign exchange retained abroad, the exchange rate differentials, uncollected taxes and duties thereon, undeclared profits, interest rates and such other relevant factors.

The fine shall be paid to the Task Force which shall retain Twenty percent (20%) thereof. The informer, if any, shall be entitled to Twenty percent (20%) of the fine. Should there be no informer, the Task Force shall be entitle to retain Forty percent (40%) of the fine and the balance shall accrue to the general funds of the National government. The amount of the fine to be retained by the Task Force shall form part of its Confidential Fund and be utilized for the operations of the Task Force." 

            QUESTION: After reading the above-outlined powers : (a) Is the anti-dollar Salting Task force a quasi-judicial body? (b) Would you consider it of co-equal rank to the Regional Trial Court? EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER.

13.  [G.R. No. 81510.  March 14, 1990.] Facts:      On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro of 177 Tupaz Street, Leveriza, Pasay City, in a sworn statement filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA for brevity) charged petitioner Hortencia Salazar, viz:

"04.      T:         Ano ba ang dahilan at ikaw ngayon ay narito at nagbibigay ng salaysay.

            S:         Upang ireklamo sa dahilan ang akmg PECC Card ay ayaw ibigay sa akin ng dati kong manager. — Horty Salazar — 615 R.O. Santos, Mandaluyong, Mla.

05.       T:         Kailan at saan naganap and ginawang panloloko sa iyo ng tao/mga taong inireklamo mo?

            S:         Sa bahay ni Horty Salazar.

06.       T:         Paano naman naganap ang pangyayari?

            S:         Pagkagaling ko sa Japan ipinatawag niya ako. Kinuha ang PECC Card ko at sinabing hahanapan ako ng booking sa Japan. Mag-9 month's na ako sa Phils. ay hindi pa niya ako napa-alis. So lumipat ako ng ibang company pero ayaw niyang ibigay and PECC Card ko.

.On November 3, 1987, public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez to whom said complaint was assigned, sent to the petitioner the following telegram:

"YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE FERDIE MARQUEZ POEA ANTI ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT UNIT 6TH FLR. POEA BLDG. EDSA COR. ORTIGAS AVE. MANDALUYONG MM ON NOVEMBER 6, 1987 AT 10 AM RE CASE FILED AGAINST YOU. FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW."

            On the same day, having ascertained that the petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued his challenged CLOSURE AND SEIZURE ORDER NO. 1205 which reads:

"HORTY SALAZAR

No. 615 R.O. Santos St.

Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.

Pursuant to the powers vested in me under Presidential Decree No. 1920 and Executive Order No. 1022, I hereby order the CLOSURE of your recruitment agency being operated at No. 615 R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and the seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that you have —

(1)        No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment;

(2)        Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code.

 This ORDER is without prejudice to your criminal prosecution under existing laws.

Done in the City of Manila, this 3th day of November, 1987."

On January 26, 1988 POEA Director on Licensing and Regulation Atty. Estelita B. Espiritu issued an office order designating respondents Atty. Marquez, Atty. Jovencio Abara and Atty. Ernesto Vistro as members of a team tasked to implement Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205. Doing so, the group assisted by Mandaluyong policemen and mediamen Lito Castillo of the People's Journal and Ernie Baluyot of News Today proceeded to the residence of the petitioner at 615 R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. There it was found that petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio. Before entering the place, the team served said Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. Flora Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. Mrs Flora Salazar informed the team that Hannalie Dance Studio was accredited with Moreman Development (Phil.) However, when required to show credentials, she was unable to produce any. Inside the studio, the team chanced upon twelve talent performers — practicing a dance number and saw about twenty more waiting outside. The team confiscated assorted costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar.

QUESTIONS: (a) Is the act of the team in confiscating the assorted costumes valid?

                        (b) would you consider the ORDER of closure and seizure issued by ACHACOSO valid?

                        ( c) If you were the counsel of Horty Salazar, what would you do to protect her interests?

14. In the case of Eugenio v. Civil Service Commission (1995) it was held that the Civil Service Commission cannot abolish the Career Executive Service Board. What is the ratiocination of the Supreme Court regarding said ruling?

15.Give the meaning of the following latin maxims as applied in administrative law:

a.       ex dolo malo non oritus actio

b.      in eo plus sit, simper inest et minus

c.       ubi jus, ubi remedum

d.      quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibitur et per obluquum

e.       in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis

16. [G.R. No. 112497.  August 4, 1994.]The principal issue in this case is the constitutionality of Section 187 of the Local Government Code reading as follows:

Procedure For Approval And Effectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. — The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof; Provided, further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction. 

Pursuant thereto, the Secretary of Justice had, on appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer, declared Ordinance No. 7794, otherwise known as the Manila Revenue Code, null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public policy.

In a petition for certiorari filed by the City of Manila, the Regional Trial Court of Manila (A)revoked the Secretary's resolution and sustained the ordinance, holding inter alia that the procedural requirements had been observed. More importantly, (B) it declared Section 187 of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional because of its vesture in the Secretary of Justice of the power of control over local governments in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of the specific provision therein conferring on the President of the Philippines only the power of supervision over local governments.

QUESTION: Is the decision of the RTC of Manila valid? Explain.

17. (A)Does the ombudsman have the power to prosecute public officers who have committed election offenses?

 (B)Does it have the power to investigate the President, Chief Justice  and Comelec Chairman for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment?

 (C) Does it have the power to prosecute before the Sandiganbayan the Chairman of the COA?

18. In this special civil action for certiorari, petitioner Delano Padilla seeks to set aside the resolution  1 of public respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) which confirmed the decision of respondent Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) dismissing petitioner from the service after finding him guilty of the charges in the administrative complaint filed by the Land Transportation Office (LTO) of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC). Resolution No. 92-1849 dated November 17, 1992 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration is likewise assailed here.

The relevant antecedents of the instant petition are as follows:

On November 2, 1988, an administrative complaint  2 for gross dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and gross violation of the law, rules and reasonable office regulations was filed against petitioner Delano Padilla, former officer-in-charge of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) of Bacolod City. It was alleged that petitioner succeeded in having caused and approved the registration and/or transfer of ownership of twelve (12) carnapped and stolen vehicles despite prior knowledge that existing laws, rules and regulations were violated in the registration and transfer thereof. As contended by complainant LTO, petitioner failed to require confirmation of the Certificate of Registration and Official Receipts corresponding to the subject vehicles from the LTO district offices which issued the same. Had he done so, no registration and/or transfer of the vehicles would have been possible because all the supporting documents pertinent to them were spurious. LibLex

Petitioner was given five (5) days from receipt thereof to answer the charges filed against him.

Accordingly, petitioner filed his answer  3 dated December 26, 1988 vehemently denying the charges against him. He contended that the twelve (12) motor vehicles were covered by proper clearances, certificates and similar documents issued by the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group (CHPG). He claimed that the charges were baseless and were filed only to maliciously taint his good name and reputation.

The matter was set for hearing on April 20, 1989. However, only prosecutor Ramon Cuyco and his witness, Alfonso Alianza, were present. Petitioner and his counsel failed to appear despite due notice. Consequently, the case was heard ex-parte and was considered submitted for decision.

After considering the evidence on record, respondent Administrative Action Board (AAB) of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) through then DOTC Secretary Rainerio Reyes rendered a decision,  4 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing respondent Delano T. Padilla is hereby found guilty of the charges filed against him, and accordingly sentenced as follows:

(a)        That he is hereby dismissed from the service;

(b)        That he is disqualified for reemployment in the government service;

(c)        That his leave credits and retirement benefits are hereby declared forfeited; and

(d)        That his civil service eligibility is hereby recommended to be cancelled.

Petitioner contends that his constitutional right to due process or administrative due process was violated when on April 20, 1989 the scheduled hearing proceeded despite his, and his counsel's absence. He claims that nobody testified during the hearing and that the supporting documents were not presented or marked in evidence.

Rule on the contention of petitioner: was there a violation of due process?

19. [G.R. No. L-76633.  October 18, 1988.] The private respondent in this case was awarded the sum of P192,000.00 by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for the death of her husband. The decision is challenged by the petitioner on the principal ground that the POEA had no jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseas worker.

Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan, March 15, 1985. His widow sued for damages under Executive Order No. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. 2 of the POEA. The petitioner, as owner of the vessel, argued that the complaint was cognizable not by the POEA but by the Social Security System and should have been filed against the State Insurance Fund. The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of the complainant. The award consisted of P180,000.00 as death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial expenses.

The petitioner immediately came to this Court, prompting the Solicitor General to move for dismissal on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Ordinarily, the decisions of the POEA should first be appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, on the theory inter alia that the agency should be given an opportunity to correct the errors, if any, of its subordinates.

Question: Is the move of the Solicitor General correct? Explain.

20. Given the following  terms:

"public interest" in People v. Rosenthal, "justice and equity" in Antamok Gold Fields v. CIR, "public convenience and welfare" in Calalang v. Williams, and "simplicity, economy and efficiency" in Cervantes v. Auditor General, the "sense and experience of men"  in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission, and "national security" in Hirabayashi v. United States.

What do you have in mind when confronted with such terms? What is their relevance in administrative law?

 21.  In the case of Corona v. UHPA, an issue was raised on the validity of  the PPA Administrative Order which limits the term of appointment of harbor pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation. It is claimed that said order (1) violates due process because it was issued without prior consultation or hearing and (2) it amounted to deprivation of property rights. State how the Supreme Court ruled on the two issues.