Quasi-Judicial or Adjudicatory Power | Powers of Administrative Agencies | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Quasi-Judicial or Adjudicatory Power of Administrative Agencies

The quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power refers to the ability of administrative agencies to resolve disputes, determine rights, and impose liabilities similar to the functions of courts. This power is derived from statutes and granted to agencies so that they can make decisions that affect private parties in a manner that is typically judicial in nature, but within the specialized areas of administrative law. In the Philippines, the quasi-judicial powers of administrative agencies are recognized under the Constitution and various laws, and they are crucial in efficiently managing the increasing complexity of modern governance.

Key Aspects of Quasi-Judicial Powers of Administrative Agencies:

1. Nature and Scope of Quasi-Judicial Power: Quasi-judicial power allows administrative agencies to hear and decide cases involving the rights and obligations of parties, often within their specialized areas of regulation. The agencies can issue orders, impose penalties, award damages, or grant relief based on the evidence and the law applicable to the dispute.

   These agencies are empowered to:

   • Conduct hearings
   • Issue subpoenas
   • Take evidence
   • Make findings of fact
   • Apply the law to these facts
   • Render binding decisions

   Their decisions are usually subject to judicial review, but courts generally defer to the agency’s expertise, especially in fact-finding and technical matters.

2. Statutory Basis: Administrative agencies derive their quasi-judicial powers from enabling laws. These laws specify the scope and extent of the agency's authority. For example, the Labor Code grants the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) the authority to decide labor disputes, while the Securities Regulation Code gives the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quasi-judicial powers over corporate disputes.

3. Procedure in Exercising Quasi-Judicial Powers: The exercise of quasi-judicial powers typically follows procedures that mimic judicial proceedings. The Administrative Procedure Act (Republic Act No. 9485, also known as the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007) and relevant rules of procedure of each agency guide the process. The parties are given notice and the opportunity to be heard (due process), and hearings are often conducted in a manner similar to court trials but with some flexibility in procedural requirements.

   The process generally includes:

   • Notice and Hearing: Before an agency can issue a decision affecting rights, it must provide notice to the parties and hold a hearing where both parties can present evidence.
   • Presentation of Evidence: Parties present their case through documents, testimonies, or other evidence. Agencies may also conduct their own investigations.
   • Fact-Finding and Legal Determination: The agency evaluates the evidence, makes findings of fact, and applies the relevant law.
   • Issuance of Decision: The agency issues a decision, which includes a statement of the facts, the applicable laws, and the rationale for the decision.

4. Standards in the Exercise of Quasi-Judicial Powers:

   • Due Process: A fundamental requirement in the exercise of quasi-judicial power is that due process must be observed. This involves providing adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, an impartial tribunal, and a decision based on substantial evidence.
   • Substantial Evidence Rule: In reviewing the factual findings of administrative agencies, courts apply the substantial evidence rule, which requires that the findings be supported by "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." This is a lower standard than in criminal cases, where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.
   • Judicial Deference: Courts typically afford administrative agencies a high level of deference, particularly in technical or specialized matters within their expertise. This deference is rooted in the understanding that administrative agencies are in a better position to assess and apply the specific regulatory framework governing their field.

5. Review of Administrative Decisions: Decisions of administrative agencies are subject to judicial review, which ensures that administrative actions are within the bounds of law and comply with constitutional and statutory requirements. However, judicial review is limited to questions of law and jurisdiction. Courts do not interfere with an agency's factual findings unless there is grave abuse of discretion or a lack of substantial evidence.

   Under the Administrative Code of 1987, decisions of quasi-judicial agencies may be appealed to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, except in cases where a different mode of review is provided by law.

6. Separation of Powers and Delegation: Quasi-judicial power is an exception to the doctrine of separation of powers. Administrative agencies, while part of the executive branch, are allowed to exercise judicial functions due to the necessity of resolving disputes that arise in the course of implementing their regulatory duties. This delegation is upheld by the courts provided that:

   • The agency acts within the scope of the authority granted by its enabling statute.
   • There are clear standards guiding the exercise of the quasi-judicial power to avoid an improper delegation of legislative or judicial authority.

7. Examples of Agencies with Quasi-Judicial Powers: Numerous administrative agencies in the Philippines have quasi-judicial powers, each tailored to their respective mandates. Some prominent examples include:

   • National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Handles labor disputes between employers and employees.
   • Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): Resolves corporate disputes, securities fraud, and issues relating to the regulation of corporations and the securities market.
   • Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC): Adjudicates matters related to the regulation of electricity rates and the energy industry.
   • Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB): Decides on cases involving the operation of public transportation, such as granting franchises and resolving disputes between transport operators.
   • Civil Service Commission (CSC): Deals with administrative cases involving government employees.

8. Principle of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Before a party can bring an administrative case to court, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies generally requires that all available remedies within the administrative agency must first be pursued. This doctrine ensures that administrative agencies are given the opportunity to correct any mistakes and resolve disputes internally before judicial intervention. Failure to exhaust these remedies may result in the dismissal of a court case.

   Exceptions to this doctrine include:

   • When there is unreasonable delay in administrative proceedings.
   • When the issue involves purely legal questions.
   • When the administrative remedy is inadequate or ineffective.
   • When the agency has acted with grave abuse of discretion.

9. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction: Related to the exhaustion doctrine is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which applies when a case requires the expertise of an administrative agency. Even if the matter could be heard by a court, the court will defer the case to the agency with specialized knowledge. This is particularly relevant in disputes involving regulatory laws and technical subject matter.

10. Grave Abuse of Discretion: Administrative agencies must exercise their quasi-judicial powers without grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse refers to a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to an evasion of positive duty or a violation of law. When an administrative agency acts in such a manner, its decision may be annulled by a court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Conclusion

The quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power of administrative agencies in the Philippines is an essential component of modern governance. It allows for the efficient resolution of disputes within specialized areas, reducing the burden on courts and providing expert decision-making. However, the exercise of this power is bounded by principles of due process, substantial evidence, judicial review, and the separation of powers. This ensures that while agencies may act in a quasi-judicial capacity, their actions remain accountable to the rule of law.