Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE - Coggle Diagram

- - - - IF JURIDICAL PERSON, UPON AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE/AGENT
        In this case, Kanlaon is a private domestic corporation; as such, the summons served upon them shall be made upon their authorized representative or agent. As such, whether Engineer Estacio is an agent or authorized representative of Kanlaon is a matter that must be resolved.
        (Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. v. NLRC)
    - - ESTACIO SUPERVISED THE PROJECT
        In this case, the construction project was managed and supervised by Engineer Estacio himself; in fact, the project of Kanlaon in Iligan City and the work of the employees therein were also attended to and supervised by Estacio himself.
        Furthermore, as manager, Estacio had sufficient responsibility and discretion to realize the importance of the legal papers served on him and to relay the same to Kanlaon’s President or other responsible officer of the domestic corporation. Therefore, summons were validly served on Kanlaon upon service to Engineer Estacio.
        (Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. v. NLRC)
    - - NON-LAWYERS MAY APPEAR IF
        As an exception, non-lawyers may appear under the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules if
        
        PARTY He represents himself AS PARTY to the case,
        
        WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION - He REPRESENTS THE ORGANIZATION or its members, provided that that he shall be made to present WRITTEN PROOF that he is properly AUTHORIZED; OR
        
        DULY ACCREDITED - He is a DULY-ACCREDITED MEMBER of any legal aid office duly recognized by the DOJ or the IBP in cases referred thereto by the latter.
        
        (Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. v. NLRC)
    - - COMPROMISE NOT AN ADMISSION OF ANY LIABILITY
        In civil cases, an offer to compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror; otherwise, no attempt to settle litigation could be safely made.
        (Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. v. NLRC)
        
        DEFENDANT'S PROMISE TO PAY = PLAINTIFF'S OBLIGATION TO WITHDRAW
        A defendant’s promise to pay and settle the plaintiff’s claims ordinarily requires reciprocal obligation from the plaintiff to withdraw.
        (Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. v. NLRC)
        
        PROMISE TO PAY AT PRELIM CONFERENCE IS CONSTRUABLY OFFER TO COMPROMISE
        In this case, Engineer Estacio made a promise to pay at the preliminary conference; therefore his offer to pay was an offer to compromise.
        (Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. v. NLRC)
      - ORDERS OF QJA ARE APPEALED TO CA
        Its appellate jurisdiction was extended to cover not only final judgments of RTCs, but also all final judgments, decisions
        (First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA)
        
        DIRECT APPEAL TO SC
        
        ConCom 65
        
        RTC Crim RP^ 45
        Only decisions, orders, or rulings of a Constitutional Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on original petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
        
        The Supreme Court entertains ordinary appeals only from decisions of RTC in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
        (First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA)
        
        BOARD OF INVESTMENTS IS A QJA
        Regarding the fact that the BOI is not included in the list of quasi-judicial agencies in Circular 1-91, Section 1 thereof expressly states that it applies to appeals from “final orders or decisions of any quasi-judicial agency from which an appeal is now allowed by statute to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.”
        (First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA)
        
        DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY MAY APPROVE/REJECT TREE FARM PERMIT
        W/ APPROVAL OF SEC. OF AGRI & NAT RESO.
        Under Sec. 1838 of the Revised Administrative Code, approving/rejecting an application for a Tree Farm Permit is within the jurisdiction of the Director of Forestry with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
        (Manuel v. Villena)
        
        APPROVAL/REJECTION = EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE
        The power thus conferred on the Director of Forestry with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is basically executive or administrative in nature.
        (Manuel v. Villena)
        
        COURTS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH PROCEEDINGS OF ADMIN BODIES
        Generally, courts refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of administrative functions.
        This is so because such bodies are generally better equipped technically to decide administrative questions and that non-legal factors such as government policy on the matter, are usually involved in the decisions.
        (Manuel v. Villena)
        
        APPEALABLE IF GAD, FRAUD, IMPOSITION, OR MISTAKE
        However, there are limits to the exercise of administrative discretion. Administrative proceedings may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing that “the board or official has gone beyond his statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion” or that the decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition, or mistake.
        (Manuel v. Villena)
        
        NO GAD NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
        In this case, there was no grave abuse of discretion. The complaint alleged denial of due process and grave abuse of discretion, in that Manuel was not formally represented by counsel at any stage of the proceedings before the Director of Forestry and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
        In this case, there was no showing that notice was sent to him so as to afford him an opportunity to obtain the services of a lawyer, and that the Secretary dismissed the appeal before the completion of the reinvestigation he had ordered. However, these circumstances do not necessarily constitute a violation of due process or grave abuse of discretion because he filed two separate MRs before the Director of Forestry and then upon their denial appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.(Manuel v. Villena)
        
        ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ARE NOT RESTRICTED BY TECHNICAL RULES OF PROCEDURE
        Section 1838 of the Revised Administrative Code does not require the investigation be in the nature of a court trial. In deciding administrative questions, administrative bodies or officials generally enjoy wide discretion.
        Technical rules of procedure are not strictly enforced and due process of law in the strict judicial sense is not indispensable.
        (Manuel v. Villena)
        
        SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND REASONABLENESS SUFFICES
        It is sufficient that the substantive due process requirement of fairness and reasonableness be observed.
        (Manuel v. Villena)
        
        RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO ADMIN
        (Executive Judge Basilla v. Judge Becamon)
        
        2 ADMIN CASES INVOLVED SAME FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN PARTIES
        In this case, the 2 administrative cases involved the same factual circumstances between the parties.
        (Executive Judge Basilla v. Judge Becamon)
        
        CERTIORARI TO SC ON FINAL ADJUDICATION = RES JUDICATA
        It has been declared that whenever final adjudication of persons invested with power to decide on the property and rights of the citizen is examinable by the Supreme Court, upon a writ of error or a certiorari, such final adjudication may be pleaded as res judicata.
        (NHA v. Almeida)
        
        ADMIN AGENCIES ARE NOT COURTS REGARDING SOP
        Administrative agencies are not considered courts, in their strict sense, based on the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. The executive department may not, by its own fiat, impose the judgment of one of its agencies, upon the judiciary.
        (NHA v. Almeida)
        
        SC MAY DETERMINE GAD
        The Supreme Court is empowered to “determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
        (NHA v. Almeida)
        
        1 more item...
        
        RES JUDICATA ELEMENTS
        
        FINAL JUDGMENT - The former judgment or order must be final,
        
        ON THE MERITS - It must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial
        
        JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and the parties; and,
        
        IDENTITY OF PARTIES, SM, COA there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action;
        This requisite is satisfied if the two actions are substantially between the same parties.
        
        (Abelita v. Doria)
        
        2 KINDS OF RES JUDICATA
        
        2 more items...
        
        ADMIN LIABILITY V. CIVIL LIABILITY
        IN ADMIN CASE,
        NO IDENTITY OF COA IF FORMER JUDGMENT DEALS WITH CIVIL LIABILITY
        As regards the lack of an identity of causes of action, an administrative case deals with the administrative liability which may be incurred by the respondent for the commission of the acts complained of. However, the present case deals with the civil liability for damages of the police authorities.
        
        MEMORANDUM DECISIONS = SUCCINCTLY WRITTEN DECISIONS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE TO FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW
        Memorandum decisions adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusion of law contained in the decisions of the inferior tribunals.
        It is a type of succinctly written decisions by appellate courts in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 40, BP 129 as amended, on the grounds of expediency, practicality, convenience and docket status of our courts.
        (Solid Homes v. Laserna)
        
        2 more items...
  - - - PRESENCE OF PARTY NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED
        NOTICE NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED
        The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The presence of a party is not always the cornerstone of due process.
        (Medenilla v. CSC)
        
        LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS WHAT IS PROHIBITED
        What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard.
        (Medenilla v. CSC)
        
        FILING MR = OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
        In this case, any defect was cured by Medenilla’s act of filing of a motion for reconsideration.
        (Medenilla v. CSC)
        
        TEACHER'S RIGHTS DURING DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE
        In accordance with Sec. 8 of RA 4670, teachers have the following rights during any disciplinary procedure:
        
        INFORMED OF CHARGES IN WRITING - Right to be informed of the charges in writing,
        
        FULL ACCESS TO EVIDENCE - Right to full access to the evidence in the case;
        
        DEFEND/BE DEFENDED BY REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS CHOICE - Right to defend himself and be defended by a representative of his choice;
        
        ADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE DEFENSE Adequate time given to prepare his defense;
        
        APPEAL TO DESIGNATED AUTHORITIES - Right to appeal to clearly designated authorities.
        
        (Fabella v. CA)
        
        COMMITTEE COMPOSITION
        
        SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT
        
        REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LOCAL/ANY EXISTING PROVINCIAL/NATIONAL TEACHERS' ORGANIZATION
        
        SUPERVISOR OF DIVISION
        By virtue of Sec. 9 of RA 4670, the committee which would hear public school teachers’ administrative cases should be composed of the school superintendent of the division as chairman, a representative of the local or any existing provincial or national teachers’ organization and a supervisor of the division.
        
        (Fabella v. CA)
        
        NO REPRESENTATIVE IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE CASE; THUS, PROCEEDINGS WERE VOID
        In this case, there was no inclusion by the DECS committees of a “representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teacher’s organization” as required under Sec. 9 of RA 4670.
        Since all proceedings are deemed to have been not taken within competent jurisdiction, they are all void.
        The committee also provided no basis in making a decision to suspend or dismiss Septimo et al. To ensure an impartial tribunal, it was indispensable to include a representative of a teachers’ organization in the committees.
        (Fabella v. CA)
        
        COUNSEL WALK-OUT NOT WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A HEARING
        Teachers’ counsel’s act of walking out should not have been deemed as a waiver of the teachers’ right to a hearing. Such a walk out by the counsel was staged in protest against the adopted procedures. Thereafter, the committee concluded the investigation without complying with requirement under Sec. 8 of RA 4670 that teachers be given full access to evidence against them.
        
        DENIAL OF A FORMAL INVESTIGATION IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
        Medina’s right to due process was not denied when her request for formal investigation was denied.
        (Medina v. COA)
        
        FILING COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT, POSITION PAPER, OR MR MEANS THERE WAS OPPORUNITY TO BE HEARD
        There was a chance given to Medina to file a counter affidavit, position paper, and motions for reconsideration.
        So long as the parties were given an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. Medina’s right to due process was not violated when the Court of Appeals refused to reopen and review the case.
        (Medina v. COA)
        
        OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN ADMINPRO = OPPORTUNITY TO
        
        EXPLAIN ONE'S SIDE; or
        
        SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF ACTION/RULING
        Opportunity to be heard as applied to administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action/ruling complained of.
        (Gannapao v. CSC)
        
        DURING PRE-CHARGE INVESTIGATION, SUBMITTING ANSWER SUFFICES
        Due process was afforded to Gannapao during the proceedings before the Office of the Legal Service of the PNP. Gannapao was adequately apprised of the charges filed against him and he submitted his answer to the complaint while the case was still under a pre-charge investigation.
        (Gannapao v. CSC)
        
        SUMMARY HEARING + NOTICE SUFFICES
        As the Office of the Legal Service conducted a summary hearing on the complaint, he was again duly notified of the proceedings and was given an opportunity to explain his side.
        (Gannapao v. CSC)
  - - - EVIDENCE MUST BE PROVIDED TO SUPPORT FINDING/CONCLUSION - Evidence must be provided to support a finding or conclusion by such tribunal.
        
        SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Such evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence pertains to evidence which a reasonable mind accepts as adequate to support a conclusion. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence.
        
        EVIDENCE MUST BE
        -PRESENTED AT HEARING; OR
        -CONTAINED IN RECORD + DISCLOSED TO PARTIES Decisions must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
        
        INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION OF JUDGE OF LAW AND FACTS The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
        
        DECISION INFORMING PARTIES OF:
        
        VARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVED +
        
        REASON FOR DECISION* RENDERED - The board or body should in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
        
        JUDGE MUST NOT SIMPLY ACCEPT VIEWS OF SUBORDINATE
- - - - SUBPOENA; CONTEMPT POWER
        In any contested case, the agency shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents and other pertinent data.
        
        RTC'S AID REQUIRED FOR CONTEMPT
        As a general rule, the aid of the Regional Trial Court should be invoked in cases of contempt.
        
        LAW MAY GIVE AGENCY CONTEMPT POWER
        By way of exception, the administrative agency has contempt power only if the law gives such power to the agency.
        
        SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED
        The quantum of proof required before Quasi-Judicial Agencies is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence pertains to evidence which a reasonable mind accepts as adequate to support a conclusion. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence.