CHAPTER VI MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial Review of Administrative DecisionsThe perfection of appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. (The old rule was thirty (30) days. The new rule is fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the decision)The rules and regulations of administrative bodies have the force and effect of law if they become final.

Modes of Judicial Review1. Constitutional Provisions a. Supreme Court powers:Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and over petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habaeas corpus. (Art. VIII,1987 Constitution)b. Sec. 7 (Art. IX,1987 Constitution)Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed to be submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission. Any decision, order, ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on a certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the copy thereof.2. AppealsSC (Feb. 21, 1991) issued Circular 1-91 Rules Governing appeals to the Court of Appeals from a final Order or decision of the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies.Revised by Administrative Circular No. 1-95 December 15, 19952.1 Scope shall apply to appeals from judgment or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolution of any quasi-judicial agency appeals is authorized to be taken to the CA and SC.Other agencies:SEC, LRA, SSC, CAB, GSIS, DAR (Pls. see page 409)

2.2. Cases not Covered- shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines, by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and by other quasi-judicial agencies from which no appeal to the court is prescribed or allowed.

2.3. Where to Appeal- CA (involved question of fact, of law, or mixed question of facts and law)

2.4. Period of Appeal- within 15 days from notice of the award, judgment or final order or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioners motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration (MR) filed in time after judgment. Only 1 MR shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and payment of docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, CA may grant an additional 15 days to file petition for review. No further extension shall be allowed, except for the most compelling reason and in no case exceed another period of 15 days.

Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa 197 SCRA 853F:Sec. 9 (3) of BP 129, it is the CA w/c has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgment or orders of quasi-judicial agencies. Respondents contend that petitioners are not quasi-judicial agencies and are not in equal rank with RTC.H: In the case at bar, the competent court w/c properly take cognizance of the proceedings would nonetheless be the RTC and not the CA in view of Sec. 21 (1) , BP 129 w/c confers upon the former jurisdiction over actions for prohibition concurrently w/ the CA and SC. Ordinarily, the case would then be remanded to the RTC, but considering the voluminous pleadings submitted by the parties and the evidence presented, we deem it proper to decide the controversy right at this instance.

3. CertiorariPetition for Certiorari - when any tribunal, board, or officer existing judicial functions, has acted w/o or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts w/ certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings, as the law requires, of such tribunal, board or officer. Requirements:certified true copy of the of the judgment or order subject thereofcopies of all pleadings and document relevant and pertinent thereto

RUEDA v. CAR 106 Phil. 300

F: In a petition filed with the CAR, Felix S. David sought ejectment of his tenant Jose Rueda. The court rendered judgment for the complainant and was given the authority to eject Rueda. Rueda filed the present original action for certiorari with preliminary injunction, alleging that Agrarian Court, in denying his motion for postponement of the hearing, acted in excess of jurisdiction or w/ grave abuse of discretion, because he was deprived of his right to a day in court.H:The court acquired jurisdiction both the subject matter and the parties. The granting or denial of a motion to postponed a hearing of a case, is within the jurisdiction of the court, even if irregular or erroneous, is not overstepping such jurisdiction as to constitute an act in excess of its jurisdiction, but merely an error of judgment w/c cannot be corrected by special civil action of certiorari.In line w/ denying the motion for postponement, two postponements have been obtained as the maximum permissible under the law. The court find no justification to declare that the lower court acted arbitrarily or abusively in the exercise of its discretion so as to warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

Assistant Executive Secretary v. CA 169 SCRA 27The findings of fact made therein must be respected for as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or preponderant.

Almine v. CA 177 SCRA 796 There is no appeal from the decision of the President. However, the said decision may be reviewed by the courts through a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus under Rules of Court.

Rivera v. COMELEC 199 SCRA 178The fact that the decisions, final orders or ruling of the COMELEC in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory and not appealable, does not preclude the recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari. Such provision is only applicable to questions of fact not of law. The provision was not intended to divest the SC of its authority to resolve questions of law as inherent in the judicial power conferred upon it by the Constitution.

4. ProhibitionRevised Rules of Courts Petition for prohibition ---- when the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person, whether exercising functions judicial or ministerial are w/o or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts w/ certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein.Requirements:certified true copy of the of the judgment or order subject thereofcopies of all pleadings and document relevant and pertinent thereto

Floreza v. Ongpin 182 SCRA 692F:Presidential Proclamation No. 1 all appointive public officials to submit their courtesy resignation.Executive Order No. 127 reorganizing the Ministry of Finance. Reynoso B. Floreza Revenue Service Chief (Legal) filed in the CA a petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. ( he was not recommended for reappointment).

H:Floreza was deprived of his right to security of tenure by his non-reappointment to the position of Revenue Service Chief, he was also deprived of due process.

Laurel v. Garcia 187 SCRA 797It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence.

5. Mandamus Revised Rules of Courts Petition for prohibition ---- when any tribunal, corporation, board, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of the act w/c the ;aw specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of the right or office to w/c such other is entitled, and there is no other plain , speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts w/ certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant to immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant.

Blanco v. Board of Medical Examiners 46 Phil. 190F:Medical Examiners file a complaint for mandamus, ask the court to order the Secretary of the Interior to confirm the final results of the examination. Upon Investigation the Under-Secretary of the Interior found out that questions on the subject of the medical examinations had leaked out before the said date of examination.H:It is elementary law that the writ of mandamus will not issue to control over the exercise of the discretion of a public officer. Where the law imposes upon a public officer the right and duty to exercise judgment, in reference to any matter to w/c he is called upon to act, it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such a duty is discretionary and not ministerial. 6. Declaratory ReliefRoC Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose right are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance, may before breach or violation thereof, bring an action to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder.

De Borja v. Villadolid 85 Phil 36Sec. 2 Rule 66 (RoC) it provides that the action for declaratory relief must be brought before there has been a breach of a contract or statute the construction of w/s is sought.

The general purpose of the declaratory judgment act is to provide for adjudication of the legal rights, duties or status of the respective parties.It is sufficient that there is a breach of the law, an actionable violation to bar a complaint for declaratory judgment.

National Dental Supply Co. v. Meer 90 Phil. 265Declaratory relief does not apply to cases w/r a taxpayer questions his liability for the payment of any tax, duty, or charge collectible under any law administered by the BIR and Bureau of Customs. 7. Habeas CorpusTo what habeas Corpus extends --- Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by w/c any person is deprived of his liberty, or by w/c the rightful custody of any person is w/held from the person entitled thereto.

Mejoff v. Director of Prisons 90 Phil. 70The protection against deprivation of liberty w/o due process of law and except for crimes committed against the law of the land is not limited to Phil. Citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.

8. InjunctionPreliminary Injunction --- is an order granted at any stage of an action prior to the final judgment, requiring a person to refrain from a particular act. It may also require the performance of a particular act, in w/c case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.

Lemi v. Valencia 7 SCRA 469The courts should exercise great care in granting preliminary injunction because the writ operates not merely to preserve the status quo between the parties but to compel one of them to perform a positive act; nevertheless in the case of extreme urgency ; w/r petitioners right to the writ is clear; w/r considerations of relative inconvenience are strongly in his favor; w/r there appears to be a willful invasion of petitioners right; the injury inflicted upon him being a continuing one; and w/r the effect of the ,mandatory injunction would not be to create a new relation between the parties but solely re-establish a pre-existing relation between them recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the respondent, courts should not hesitate in granting the writ.

9. Quo Warranto When an individual may commence such an action (Quo Warranto) ---- A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his name.

Quo Warranto can only be commenced by the Solicitor General or by a person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held or exercised by another. Binamira v. Garrucho Jr. 188 SCRA 154Appointment is the selection by the authority vested w/ power, of an individual who is exercised the functions of a given office. When confirmed it results to security of tenure unless replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of his office. It is executive in nature. Designation connotes merely the imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent office. It is legislative in nature. The implication of this, is that the person will hold the office only in the temporary capacity and maybe replaced at will by the appointing authority. (acting / temporary appointment.)

10. Suit for Damages, Indirect Method

CHAPTER VII EXTENT JUDICIAL REVIEW1. Law-fact DistinctionDauan v. Sec. of DENR 19 SCRA 223Were the matter a simple process of ascertaining from the records whether the application had been granted, we would agree w/ the appellants that it is a question of fact.It is a rule now that settled that the conclusion drawn from the facts is a conclusion of law w/c the courts may review.

2. Question of LawOrtua v. Singson Encarnacio 59 Phil. 440The decision rendered by the Director of Lands and approved by the Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce, upon a question of fact is conclusive and not subject to be reviewed by the courts, in the absence of a showing that such decision was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition, or mistake, other than error of whether or not it is consistent w/ the preponderance of evidence, so long as there is some evidence upon w/c the finding in question could be made. 3. Question of FactBenguet Exploration Inc. v. DENR 75 SRCA 285Upon a question of fact is conclusive and not subject to be reviewed by the courts, in the absence of a showing that such decision was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition, or mistake, other than error of whether or not it is consistent w/ the preponderance of evidence, so long as there is some evidence upon w/c the finding in question could be made. Here such a stage has not been reached. It is right and proper in the interest of justice that a formal hearing on the merits to be conducted. Parties must be given all the opportunity to be heard.

CHAPTER VIII REORGANIZATION OR DISSOLUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

1. Abolition of position, office, department or organizationa. It is settled that the abolition of an office w/n the competence of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no infirmity.Two questions therefore arises:1. Was the abolition carried out by the body? And2. Was it done in good faith?b. When the purpose is to abolish a department or an office or an organization and to replace it w/ another one, the lawmaking authority says so. c. The general rule is that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislative. The exception is that as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the executive departments are concerned, the Presidents power of control may justify him to inactive the functions of a particular office. 2. NO VESTED RIGHT IN PUBLIC OFFICE 3. TEST OF GOOD FAITHa. Good faith is the basic ingredient for the validity of any government organization.b. Whether the reorganization is to be adjudged valid, or invalid, inquiry must perforce be made on the manner in w/c it is implemented and the way the power is wielded by those to whom the authority is delegated. Heretofore, this Court has repeatedly expressed the need for extreme care and prudence in carrying out the reorganization process.

4. DISSOLUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIESWhen the statutory term of non-incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties, and functions as well as the assets and liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are reassumed by, the Republic of the Philippines, in the absence of special provisions of law specifying some other disposition thereof.

Pedrera, Maria Tracy A.