Lawyerly

GR No. 195390

2014-12-10

GOV. LUIS RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE v. JESSE M. ROBREDO

REYES, J.

There is likewise no merit in the respondent's claim that the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies warrants the dismissal of the petition. It bears emphasizing that the assailed issuances were issued pursuant to the rule-making or quasi-legislative power of the DILG. This pertains to "the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute."[29] Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an administrative agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power. This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law.[30] In challenging the validity of an administrative issuance carried out pursuant to the agency's rule-making power, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not stand as a bar in promptly resorting to the filing of a case in court. This was made clear by the Court in Smart Communications, Inc. (SMART) v. National Telecommunications Commission (NTC),[31] where it was ruled, thus: In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. x x x.[32]

GR No. 174788

2013-04-11

SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM v. CA

SERENO, C.J.

This was obviously not an exercise of judicial power, which is constitutionally vested in the Supreme Court and such other courts as may be established by law.[71] Neither was it an exercise of quasi-judicial power, as administrative agencies exercise it "to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law."[72] The Court has made this point clear: In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.[73]

GR No. 178347

2013-02-25

SALVACION VILLANUEVA v. PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

DEL CASTILLO, J.

First, PCSD AO 6, cited by the trial court and the parties, cannot confer a quasi-judicial power on PCSD that its enabling statute clearly withheld. An agency's power to formulate rules for the proper discharge of its functions is always circumscribed by the enabling statute.[43] Otherwise, any agency conferred with rule-making power, may circumvent legislative intent by creating new powers for itself through an administrative order.

GR No. 192935

2010-12-07

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

MENDOZA, J.

Invoking this authority, the President constituted the PTC to primarily investigate reports of graft and corruption and to recommend the appropriate action. As previously stated, no quasi-judicial powers have been vested in the said body as it cannot adjudicate rights of persons who come before it. It has been said that "Quasi-judicial powers involve the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing and administering the same law."[58] In simpler terms, judicial discretion is involved in the exercise of these quasi-judicial power, such that it is exclusively vested in the judiciary and must be clearly authorized by the legislature in the case of administrative agencies.

GR No. 167715

2010-11-17

PHIL PHARMAWEALTH v. PFIZER

PERALTA, J.

Moreover, as discussed earlier, RA 8293 and its implementing rules and regulations do not provide for a procedural remedy to question interlocutory orders issued by the BLA-IPO. In this regard, it bears to reiterate that the judicial power of the courts, as provided for under the Constitution, includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments.[24] Judicial power also includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.[25] Hence, the CA, and not the IPO Director General, has jurisdiction to determine whether the BLA-IPO committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondents' motion to extend the effectivity of the writ of preliminary injunction which the said office earlier issued.

GR No. 165569

2010-07-29

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. DANES B. SANCHEZ

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In addition, the rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions.[18] Thus, an essential requisite for this doctrine to apply is the actual existence of quasi-judicial power.[19] However, petitioners have not shown that the CHED possesses any such power to "investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions."[20] Indeed, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7722[21] otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994, certainly does not contain any express grant to the CHED of judicial or quasi-judicial power.

GR No. 158885

2009-04-02

FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CIR

TINGA, J.

(2) Public works contractors shall be allowed a presumptive input tax equivalent to one and one-half percent (1 1/2%) of the contract price with respect to government contracts only in lieu of actual input taxes therefrom.[8]

GR No. 167614

2009-03-24

ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The constitutional challenge is also timely. It should be borne in mind that the requirement that a constitutional issue be raised at the earliest opportunity entails the interposition of the issue in the pleadings before a competent court, such that, if the issue is not raised in the pleadings before that competent court, it cannot be considered at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.[52] Records disclose that the issue on the constitutionality of the subject clause was first raised, not in petitioner's appeal with the NLRC, but in his Motion for Partial Reconsideration with said labor tribunal,[53] and reiterated in his Petition for Certiorari before the CA.[54] Nonetheless, the issue is deemed seasonably raised because it is not the NLRC but the CA which has the competence to resolve the constitutional issue. The NLRC is a labor tribunal that merely performs a quasi-judicial function - its function in the present case is limited to determining questions of fact to which the legislative policy of R.A. No. 8042 is to be applied and to resolving such questions in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself;[55] thus, its foremost function is to administer and enforce R.A. No. 8042, and not to inquire into the validity of its provisions. The CA, on the other hand, is vested with the power of judicial review or the power to declare unconstitutional a law or a provision thereof, such as the subject clause.[56] Petitioner's interposition of the constitutional issue before the CA was undoubtedly seasonable. The CA was therefore remiss in failing to take up the issue in its decision.

GR No. 175220

2009-02-12

WILLIAM C. DAGAN v. PHILIPPINE RACING COMMISSION

TINGA, J.

The third requisite for the validity of an administrative issuance is that it must be within the limits of the powers granted to it. The administrative body may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute.[43]

GR No. 163583

2008-08-20

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO v. JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

While the above statute confers on the CTA jurisdiction to resolve tax disputes in general, this does not include cases where the constitutionality of a law or rule is challenged. Where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a law, or a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts. This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.[26]

GR NO. 173034

2007-10-09

PHARMACEUTICAL v. HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

An administrative agency like respondent possesses quasi-legislative or rule-making power or the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the Constitution, and subject to the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers.[78] Such express grant of rule-making power necessarily includes the power to amend, revise, alter, or repeal the same.[79] This is to allow administrative agencies flexibility in formulating and adjusting the details and manner by which they are to implement the provisions of a law,[80] in order to make it more responsive to the times. Hence, it is a standard provision in administrative rules that prior issuances of administrative agencies that are inconsistent therewith are declared repealed or modified.

GR NO. 152214

2006-09-19

EQUI-ASIA PLACEMENT v. DFA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

There is no denying that regular courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however, is not limited to the Court of Appeals or to this Court alone for even the regional trial courts can take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set of rules promulgated by administrative bodies. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.[12]

GR NO. 163980

2006-08-03

HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. SECRETARY MICHAEL DEFENSOR

TINGA, J.

[12] Smart Communications, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, 456 Phil. 145, 155 (2003).

	GR No. 195390 2014-12-10	GOV. LUIS RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE v. JESSE M. ROBREDO REYES, J.
There is likewise no merit in the respondent's claim that the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies warrants the dismissal of the petition. It bears emphasizing that the assailed issuances were issued pursuant to the rule-making or quasi-legislative power of the DILG. This pertains to "the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute."[29] Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an administrative agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power. This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law.[30] In challenging the validity of an administrative issuance carried out pursuant to the agency's rule-making power, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not stand as a bar in promptly resorting to the filing of a case in court. This was made clear by the Court in Smart Communications, Inc. (SMART) v. National Telecommunications Commission (NTC),[31] where it was ruled, thus: In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. x x x.[32]
	GR No. 174788 2013-04-11	SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM v. CA SERENO, C.J.
This was obviously not an exercise of judicial power, which is constitutionally vested in the Supreme Court and such other courts as may be established by law.[71] Neither was it an exercise of quasi-judicial power, as administrative agencies exercise it "to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law."[72] The Court has made this point clear: In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.[73]
	GR No. 178347 2013-02-25	SALVACION VILLANUEVA v. PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DEL CASTILLO, J.
First, PCSD AO 6, cited by the trial court and the parties, cannot confer a quasi-judicial power on PCSD that its enabling statute clearly withheld. An agency's power to formulate rules for the proper discharge of its functions is always circumscribed by the enabling statute.[43] Otherwise, any agency conferred with rule-making power, may circumvent legislative intent by creating new powers for itself through an administrative order.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
Invoking this authority, the President constituted the PTC to primarily investigate reports of graft and corruption and to recommend the appropriate action. As previously stated, no quasi-judicial powers have been vested in the said body as it cannot adjudicate rights of persons who come before it. It has been said that "Quasi-judicial powers involve the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing and administering the same law."[58] In simpler terms, judicial discretion is involved in the exercise of these quasi-judicial power, such that it is exclusively vested in the judiciary and must be clearly authorized by the legislature in the case of administrative agencies.
	GR No. 167715 2010-11-17	PHIL PHARMAWEALTH v. PFIZER PERALTA, J.
Moreover, as discussed earlier, RA 8293 and its implementing rules and regulations do not provide for a procedural remedy to question interlocutory orders issued by the BLA-IPO. In this regard, it bears to reiterate that the judicial power of the courts, as provided for under the Constitution, includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments.[24] Judicial power also includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.[25] Hence, the CA, and not the IPO Director General, has jurisdiction to determine whether the BLA-IPO committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondents' motion to extend the effectivity of the writ of preliminary injunction which the said office earlier issued.
	GR No. 165569 2010-07-29	UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. DANES B. SANCHEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
In addition, the rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions.[18] Thus, an essential requisite for this doctrine to apply is the actual existence of quasi-judicial power.[19] However, petitioners have not shown that the CHED possesses any such power to "investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions."[20] Indeed, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7722[21] otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994, certainly does not contain any express grant to the CHED of judicial or quasi-judicial power.
	GR No. 158885 2009-04-02	FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CIR TINGA, J.
(2) Public works contractors shall be allowed a presumptive input tax equivalent to one and one-half percent (1 1/2%) of the contract price with respect to government contracts only in lieu of actual input taxes therefrom.[8]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The constitutional challenge is also timely. It should be borne in mind that the requirement that a constitutional issue be raised at the earliest opportunity entails the interposition of the issue in the pleadings before a competent court, such that, if the issue is not raised in the pleadings before that competent court, it cannot be considered at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.[52] Records disclose that the issue on the constitutionality of the subject clause was first raised, not in petitioner's appeal with the NLRC, but in his Motion for Partial Reconsideration with said labor tribunal,[53] and reiterated in his Petition for Certiorari before the CA.[54] Nonetheless, the issue is deemed seasonably raised because it is not the NLRC but the CA which has the competence to resolve the constitutional issue. The NLRC is a labor tribunal that merely performs a quasi-judicial function - its function in the present case is limited to determining questions of fact to which the legislative policy of R.A. No. 8042 is to be applied and to resolving such questions in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself;[55] thus, its foremost function is to administer and enforce R.A. No. 8042, and not to inquire into the validity of its provisions. The CA, on the other hand, is vested with the power of judicial review or the power to declare unconstitutional a law or a provision thereof, such as the subject clause.[56] Petitioner's interposition of the constitutional issue before the CA was undoubtedly seasonable. The CA was therefore remiss in failing to take up the issue in its decision.
	GR No. 175220 2009-02-12	WILLIAM C. DAGAN v. PHILIPPINE RACING COMMISSION TINGA, J.
The third requisite for the validity of an administrative issuance is that it must be within the limits of the powers granted to it. The administrative body may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute.[43]
	GR No. 163583 2008-08-20	BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO v. JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
While the above statute confers on the CTA jurisdiction to resolve tax disputes in general, this does not include cases where the constitutionality of a law or rule is challenged. Where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a law, or a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts. This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.[26]
	GR NO. 173034 2007-10-09	PHARMACEUTICAL v. HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An administrative agency like respondent possesses quasi-legislative or rule-making power or the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the Constitution, and subject to the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers.[78] Such express grant of rule-making power necessarily includes the power to amend, revise, alter, or repeal the same.[79] This is to allow administrative agencies flexibility in formulating and adjusting the details and manner by which they are to implement the provisions of a law,[80] in order to make it more responsive to the times. Hence, it is a standard provision in administrative rules that prior issuances of administrative agencies that are inconsistent therewith are declared repealed or modified.
	GR NO. 152214 2006-09-19	EQUI-ASIA PLACEMENT v. DFA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is no denying that regular courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however, is not limited to the Court of Appeals or to this Court alone for even the regional trial courts can take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set of rules promulgated by administrative bodies. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.[12]
	GR NO. 163980 2006-08-03	HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. SECRETARY MICHAEL DEFENSOR TINGA, J.
[12] Smart Communications, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, 456 Phil. 145, 155 (2003).

SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION