Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

JUDICIAL REVIEW - Coggle Diagram

- - - - RES JUDICATA
        2
        
        RES JUDICATA DEFINED
        Res Judicata is a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided, a thing or matter settled by judgment.
        (Derla v. Hipolito)
        
        ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA
        
        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;
        
        RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
        The Heirs of Darla argue that res judicata cannot apply because the case before the Office of the President is an administrative case. While it is true that the Supreme Court declared that the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of administrative powers, this is limited to proceedings purely administrative in nature.
        (Derla v. Hipolito)
        
        BUT RES JUDICATA MAY APPLY TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ADVERSARIAL IN CHARACTER (QJAs)
        When the administrative proceedings take on an adversary character, the doctrine of res judicata applies. Res judicata applies to judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction.
        (Meralco v. Philippine Consumer's Foundation)
        
        1974 DECISION UPHELD DESPITE 1972 DECISION WAS FINAL & EXECUTORY
        If res judicata is to be applied, it should bar the case filed by Catalina before the Office of the President, as it overturned the earlier final decision of the Office of the President (1974 decision)
        Before the 1974 decision was made, the Office of the President’s 1972 decision had become final and executory, vesting in Hipolito the rights to his fishpond.
        However, to nullify the November 11, 1974 decision to give way to this 1972 decision would not help this protracted debate.
        The November 11, 1974 decision is a well-written decision filled with details and factual antecedents that clearly spell out each of the parties' respective rights, and explained its rational.
        It is also essentially a repeat of the 1972 decision as it confers the same rights and privileges to Hipolito. Therefore, the most prudent thing to do is to retain the more exhaustive and factually updated version of the OP decision.
        (Meralco v. Philippine Consumer's Foundation)
        
        JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS
        A judgment is on the merits when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections.
        
        IDENTITY OF PARTIES ONLY NEED BE SUBSTANTIAL
        4TH Requisite is satisfied if the two actions are substantially between the same parties.
        
        SAME PARTIES CANNOT ESCAPE RES JUDICATA BY ADDING ANOTHER PLAINTIFF
        The BOE Case was between PCFI and Meralco while the present case involves the same parties except that Edgardo Isip joined PCFI as plaintiff. However, his inclusion as such plaintiff is inconsequential.
        A party by bringing forward, in a second case, additional parties cannot escape the effects of the principle of res judicata when the facts remain the same. Res judicata is not defeated by a minor difference of parties, as it does not require absolute but only SUBSTANTIAL identity of parties.
        (Meralco v. Philippine Consumers Foundation)
      - COURTS ARE RELUCTANT TO INTERFERE WITH ADMIN ACTION PRIOR TO COMPLETION OR FINALITY
        In Matienzo v. Abellera, it was held that courts should be reluctant to interfere with administrative action prior to its completion or finality...
        (Paredes v. CA)
        
        RATIO: ABSENT A FINAL ORDER, POWER OF ADMIN AGENCY HAS NOT BEEN FULLY EXERCISED
        Absence of a final order or decision, the power of the administrative agency concerned has not been fully exercised and there can be no irreparable harm.
        Hence, it is after judicial review is no longer premature that the courts may ascertain, in proper cases, whether the administrative action or findings are not in violation of law, whether they are free from fraud or imposition and whether they find substantial support from the evidence.
        (Paredes v. CA)
        
        NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION + REQUIRES ADMIN AGENCY
        For the reason that the AOs have not yet been submitted to the Cabinet for its consideration and approval, it is untimely to discuss and resolve the merits of the questions of:
        
        Whether the rate increases and charges are just and reasonably sufficient to cover administrative costs,
        
        Whether the same are practicable and uniform for similar or comparable services and functions, and
        
        Whether those rates conform with the rules and regulations of the Ministry of Finance.
        
        Moreover, the questions raised in this petition are not yet ripe for judicial determination.
        (Paredes v. CA)
      - FINAL JUDGMENT IS IMMUTABLE/UNALTERABLE
        
        EVEN BY SC
        
        EVEN IF ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION OF FACT/LAW
        Once a judgment attains finality it becomes immutable and unalterable, even by the Supreme Court. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law.
        (Derla v. Hipolito)
    - - MAYOR CAN BEST REVIEW SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY'S ACTIONS
        In this case, it is the Mayor who can best review the Sangguniang Barangay’s actions to see if it acted within the scope of its prescribed powers and functions.
        CA correctly found that the RTC committed no reversible error in dismissing the case for NSVHAI failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as the requirement under the LGC that the closure and opening of roads be made pursuant to an ordinance, instead of a resolution, is not applicable in this case because the subject roads belong to the City Government of Parañaque.
        (NSHA v. SB)
      - MATTERS INVOLVING
        APPOINTMENTS TO POSITIONS IN CIVIL SERVICE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE
        (Obiasca v. Basallote)
        
        IF AN APPEAL/REMEDY or MR IS AVAILABLE, THIS SHOULD BE RESORTED TO BEFORE RESORT IS MADE TO COURTS
        If an appeal or remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts
        (Obiasca v. Basallote)
        
        MR WAS NOT FILED WITH CSC; RESO BECAME FINAL & EXEC
        While exceptions to the rule are acknowledged, none are availing in this case. Obiasca went straight to the CA and did not file a petition for reconsideration with the CSC. Such procedural lapse was fatal on his part. It allowed the resolution to become final and executory. Therefore, the Court of Appeals could no longer reverse or amend a final and definitive judgment.
        (Obiasca v. Basallote)
        
        12 EXCEPTIONS
        (Republic v. Lacap)
        
        PURE QUESTIONS OF LAW
        Questions of law can only be resolved by admin authorities tentatively. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply because nothing of an administrative nature is to be done or can be done.
        (Republic v. Lacap)
        
        QUESTION OF W/N CONTRACTOR IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT FOR COMPLETED PROJECT SINCE HIS LICENSE EXPIRED AT TIME OF EXECUTION OF CONTRACT IS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW
        The question of whether a contractor is entitled to payment for a completed project given his license expired at the time of execution of the contract is clearly a pure question of law. Such question does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties
        (Republic v. Lacap)
        
        UNREASONABLE DELAY +
        PURE QUESTION OF LAW
        In this case, while the administrative remedy available to Lacap is an appeal to the COA of the District Auditor’s denial of his claim pursuant to PD 1445, Section 48, the complaint before the judicial courts is not premature because the third and fourth exceptions are applicable to the case at hand.
        First, there was unreasonable delay and official inaction to the great prejudice of Lacap as the DPWH legal department rendered two legal opinions in 1993 and 1994, holding that payment to a contractor with an expired contractor’s license is proper, yet the Republic still did not pay Lacap for his completed work despite repeated demands.
        Secondly, the question involved is a question of law. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.
        (Republic v. Lacap)
        
        ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES CANNOT AWARD DAMAGES; CHED CANNOT AWARD DAMAGES
        Administrative agencies such as CHED are not courts with the power to award damages. Thus, Khristine could not have commenced the issue before the CHED.
        (Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges)
        
        KHRISTINE PRAYED FOR DAMAGES
        In this case, Khristine is not asking for reversal of PCST’s policies or asking them to allow her to take her final exams since she was already enrolled in another school. The Court also ruled exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable when there is competence on the part of the administrative body to act upon the matter complained of.
        The Court pointed out that the doctrine has exceptions such as when the issue is purely legal and well within the jurisdiction of the trial court. Since Khristine’s action for damages calls for the application and interpretation of the Civil Code, it is within the jurisdiction of the courts.
        (Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges)
        
        ADMINISTRATIVE CASES MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
        Criminal and admin cases are separate and distinct from each other. In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed. In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required. Accordingly, administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings.
        (Azucar v. Jorolan)
        
        MISCONDUCT = W/I/U CONDUCT + WRONGFUL INTENTION
        Misconduct is a wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose.
        
        It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where
        
        No discretion is left except what necessity may demand*;
        
        Misconduct implies wrongful intention.
        
        VIOLATION OF LAW
        On the other hand, a violation of law presupposes final conviction of any crime or offense penalized under the RPC or any special law or ordinance.
        
        REQUISITES OF A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI
        For a special civil action for certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur:
        
        DIRECTED AGAINST TRIBUNAL, BOARD, or OFFICER EXERCISING J/QJ FUNCTIONS - the action must be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions,
        
        LACK/EXCESS OF Jd OR GAD - said tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
        
        NO PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY - No appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
        
        APPEAL WAS AVAILABLE + NO GAD of PLEB
        In this case, an appeal was available to Acuzar and he also failed to sufficiently show any Grave Abuse of Discretion of the Philippine Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) which would justify his immediate resort to certiorari.
  - - - PENDENCY IN SEC
        In this case, pending the decision of the SEC on the SEC En Banc Cases, which seek to resolve the issue of whether the rehabilitation proceedings in this case should be terminated, we are constrained to dismiss this petition for prematurity.
        (Nestle v. Uniwide)
      - OBJECTIVE OF PJ: TO GUIDE THE COURT
        The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court.
        It is not for this Court to intrude, at this stage of the rehabilitation proceedings, into the primary administrative jurisdiction of the SEC on a matter requiring its technical expertise.
        (Nestle v. Uniwide)
      - COURT MAY RESOLVE CASE IF
        
        IT IS IN A POSITION TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE
        
        BASED ON RECORDS BEFORE IT AND IF
        
        JUSTICE WOULD NOT BE SUBSERVED BY A REMAND
        However, under certain exceptional circumstances, the Court has taken cognizance of questions of law even in the absence of an initial determination by a lower court or administrative body.
        
        The Court has held in previous cases that the remand of a case is not necessary where the court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it.
        The Court will decide actions on the merits in order to expedite the settlement of a controversy and if the ends of justice would not be subserved by a remand of the case. There would be no useful purpose served if it remands the matter to the Board, only for its decision to be elevated again to the Court of Appeals and subsequently to the Court.
        (GSIS v. COA)
        
        EXCEPTIONS TO PJ AND EXHAUSTION
        Republic v. Lacap states the exceptions to the said doctrines
        
        ESTOPPEL - Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine
        
        PATENTLY ILLEGAL/LACK OF JURISDICTION - When the administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction
        
        UNREASONABLE DELAY - When there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will prejudice the complainant.
        
        AMOUNT IS SMALL THAT RULING IS IMPRACTICAL/OPPRESSIVE - Where the amount involved is relatively small, making the rule impractical and oppressive
        
        PURE QUESTIONS OF LAW - Where questions involved are purely legal and will have to be decided by the courts of justice
        
        URGENT - Where judicial intervention is urgent
        
        GREAT AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE - Where its application will cause great and irreparable damage
        
        DUE PROCESS DENIED - Where the controverted acts violate due process
        
        MOOT ISSUE - Where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot
        
        NO PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY - Where there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
        
        STRONG PUBLIC INTEREST - Where strong public interest is involved
        
        QUO WARRANTO - In quo warranto proceedings.
        
        (Vigilar v. Aquino, citing Republic v. Lacap)
        
        IF QUESTION OF LAW, ONLY TENTATIVELY RESOLVED BY ADMIN AUTHORITIES
        In the case of Republic v. Lacap, the Court held that if the case involves questions of law, such questions can be resolved only tentatively by administrative authorities. The final decision rests with courts of justice.
        The Doctrine of Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply because the issue does not require the technical knowledge and experience; it involves interpretation and application of law.
        (Vigilar v. Aquino)
        
        DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS:
        WHEN CLAIM OF CITIZENSHIP IS CONCLUSIVE OR SO SUBSTANTIAL AS TO REASONABLY BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE
        As a special exception in deportation proceedings as ruled by the Court in Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa (1991): When the claim of citizenship is so substantial as to reasonably believe it to be true, a respondent in a deportation proceeding can seek judicial relief to enjoin respondent BOC from proceeding with the deportation case. While the Bureau of Immigration has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and in the process, determine also their citizenship, when the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings.
        A citizen is entitled to live in peace, without molestation from any official or authority, and if he is disturbed by a deportation proceeding, he has the unquestionable right to resort to the courts for his protection, either by a writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition, on the legal ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction of petitioners Board of Commissioners over deportation proceedings is, therefore, not without exception.
        (Guy v. Ignacio,
        citing Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa)
        
        ID + ENJOYMENT OF RIGHTS & PRIVILEGES EXCLUSIVE TO PINOYS
        This case falls within an exception. In this case, there is substantial or conclusive evidence that they are Filipino citizens:
        (1) the Bureau of Immigration issued ID numbers confirming their Philippine Citizenship, and
        (2) Geraldine and Grace’s exercise and enjoyment of all the rights and privileges exclusively accorded to Filipino Citizens.
        Without necessarily judging the case on its merits, as to whether Geraldine and Grace had lost their Filipino citizenship by having a Canadian passport, the fact still remains, through the evidence adduced and undisputed by the respondents, that they are naturalized Filipinos, unless proven otherwise.
        However, this Court cannot pass upon the issue of Guy’s citizenship as this was not raised as an issue. The issue in this petition is on the matter of jurisdiction, and as discussed above, the trial court has jurisdiction to pass upon the issue whether petitioners have abandoned their Filipino citizenship or have acquired dual citizenship within the confines of the law.
        (Guy v. Ignacio)
        
        NEITHER CA NOR THE BOARD RESOLVED THE ISSUE ON DEDUCTIONS OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS
        The CA did not rule on the main controversy of whether COA disallowances could be deducted from retirement benefits because the Board ordered the dismissal of respondents’ claim for alleged lack of jurisdiction, before it could even decide on the principal issue.
        The Court held that the only matter that was properly elevated to this Court was the issue of whether or not the Board had jurisdiction over respondents’ demands. It was not resolved by the Court whether or not the deductions were valid under Sec. 39 of RA 8291 because the Board, as well as the appellate court, did not tackle the issue.
        (GSIS v. COA)