Category Archives: Administrative Agencies

The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies. The admissibility of evidence and the probative weight to be accorded the same pieces of evidence are distinguised.

Posted on February 3, 2012 by Erineus

To begin with, it is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such as the BOM.[6] Although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict enforcement of the rules of evidence,[7]in connection with … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Agencies, Administrative Investigation, Evidence | Tagged | Leave a comment

The quantum of evidence required in administrative cases is substantial evidence

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Erineus

Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrant the removal or dismissal from service of the erring public officer or employee, together with the accessory penalties, such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Agencies, Administrative Investigation, Administrative Law, Definitions, Evidence | Tagged | Leave a comment

The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is an exception to the non-delegation of legislative powers.

Posted on May 19, 2011 by Erineus

Finally, petitioner argues that there has been undue delegation of legislative power, as PD 1986 does not provide for the range of imposable penalties that may be applied with respect to violations of the provisions of the law.           The … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Agencies, Congress, Constitutional Law, MTRCB, Separation of Power | Tagged , | 2 Comments

The power to impose preventive suspension pending investigation is one of the implied or inherent powers of MTRCB. The preventive suspension can validly be meted out even without a hearing.

Posted on May 18, 2011 by Erineus

It is petitioner’s threshold posture that the preventive suspension imposed against him and the relevant IRR provision authorizing it are invalid inasmuch as PD 1986 does not expressly authorize the MTRCB to issue preventive suspension. Petitioner’s contention is untenable. Administrative … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Agencies, MTRCB, Preventive Suspension | Tagged | Leave a comment