Ticker

6/recent/ticker-posts

Header Ads Widget

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Administrative charges –– Mere desistance or recantation by the complainant does not necessarily result in the dismissal of an administrative complaint against any member of the bench; the withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to determine the veracity of the charges made and to discipline, such as the results of its investigation may warrant, an erring respondent. (Atty. Lood vs. Delicana, A.M. No. P-18-3796, Jan. 22, 2018)

Administrative proceedings –– Although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict enforcement of the rules on evidence, the same does not hold true for administrative bodies; technical rules applicable to judicial proceedings are not exact replicas of those in administrative investigations. (Sibayan vs. Alda, G.R. No. 233395, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      In administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side suffices to meet the requirements of due process. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. N. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc., G.R. No. 201501, Jan. 22, 2018)

––      The rationale and purpose of the summary nature of administrative proceedings is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases without regard to technical rules; in proceedings before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, like the OGCLS-BSP, decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers or other documentary evidence only; they are not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence. (Sibayan vs. Alda, G.R. No. 233395, Jan. 17, 2018)

Development Bank of the Philippines –– Sec. 8 of the DBP Charter only mentions per diem as the compensation of the members of its Board; it does not declare any additional benefit, other than per diems, which the said members of the board may receive; good faith may be appreciated in favor of the responsible officers under the Notice of Disallowance (ND) provided they comply with the following requisites: (1) that they acted in good faith believing that they could disburse the disallowed amounts based on the provisions of the law; and (2) that they lacked knowledge of facts or circumstances which would render the disbursements illegal, such when there is no similar ruling by this Court prohibiting a particular disbursement or when there is no clear and unequivocal law or administrative order barring the same. (Dev’t. Bank of the Phils. vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 221706, March 13, 2018)

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies –– Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, a party must first avail of all administrative processes available before seeking the courts’ intervention; the administrative officer concerned must be given every opportunity to decide on the matter within his or her jurisdiction; failing to exhaust administrative remedies affects the party’s cause of action as these remedies refer to a precedent condition which must be complied with prior to filing a case in court. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Gallo, G.R. No. 207074, Jan. 17, 2018)

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction –– If an administrative tribunal has jurisdiction over a controversy, courts should not resolve the issue even if it may be within its proper jurisdiction; this is especially true when the question involves its sound discretion requiring special knowledge, experience, and services to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Gallo, G.R. No. 207074, Jan. 17, 2018)

Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties –– Sec. 46 (B)(4) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties as a grave offense, punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal from service for the second offense. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Saguyod, A.M. No. P-17-3705, Feb. 06, 2018)

Mines and mining –– In cases where a claim owner or lessee is involved in a mining dispute, it shall just submit a “Letter of Intent to file the necessary Mineral Agreement application”; the actual mineral agreement application, however, should only be filed within thirty (30) days from the final resolution of the dispute of the case. (Asiga Mining Corp. vs. Mla. Mining Corp., G.R. No. 199081, Jan. 24, 2018)

––      “Proof of actual work obligations”; the failure to perform actual work obligations that would give rise to abandonment; there is no “automatic abandonment” on the basis of the non-submission of the AAWO alone; if the claim owners or lessees did indeed fail to perform their obligations as required in Sec. 27 of the Mineral Resources Development Decree of 1974, as amended, then the cancellation of their mining claims could only be considered proper upon observance of due process. (Asiga Mining Corp. vs. Mla. Mining Corp., G.R. No. 199081, Jan. 24, 2018)

Omnibus Rules on Leave –– An official or employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. (Re: Dropping from the Rolls of Lemuel H. Vendiola, Sheriff IV, OCC, RTC of BiƱan City, Laguna, A.M. No. 17-11-272-RTC, Jan. 31, 2018)

Quasi-legislative power –– Exercised by administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules and regulations within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of powers from the separation of the branches of the government; administrative agencies are necessarily authorized to fill in the gaps of a statute for its proper and effective implementation. (H. Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. 228087, Jan. 24, 2018)

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines 

Post a Comment

0 Comments