Ejera vs. Merto, G.R. No. 163109.
Jan 22, 2014 premature, because the legal issues she seemingly raised were
Issue: Does the case of petitioner fall under the exceptions on
exhaustion of administrative remedies?
Ruling: NO. It is true that the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is not an ironclad rule, but recognizes
exceptions, specifically: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of
the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged
administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where
the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule
impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is
purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the
application of the doctrines may cause great and irreparable
damage; (h) where the controversial acts violate due process; (i)
where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has
been rendered moot; (j) where strong public interest is involved;
and (l) in quo warranto proceedings.44chanr obleslaw
The exceptions did not cover the petitioner’s case. In her complaint,
she assailed Office Order No. 008 on three basic legal grounds,
namely: (a) the re-assignment, being “whimsical and
indiscriminate,” violated the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and
Other Personnel Actions; (b) Merto had no power to investigate her,
considering that the Provincial Governor was the “proper
disciplining authority;” and (c) whether the letter of Merto requiring
her to explain her refusal to follow Office Order No. 008 should be
under oath. Still, her immediate resort to the RTC remained
admittedly interlaced with factual issues, like whether or not Merto
had issued Office Order No. 008 because of her having attacked him
in her protest against Kirit as the appointee to the position of
Supervising Agriculturist, and whether or not her reassignment
constituted banishment from her office in Dumaguete City. She
further averred that the reassignment had been whimsical and
indiscriminate, an averment that surely called for factual basis. It
ought to be beyond question that the factual issues could only be
settled by a higher policy-determining provincial official like the
Provincial Governor by virtue of his authority, experience and
expertise to deal with the issues. The Provincial Governor should
have been given a very meaningful opportunity to resolve the
matter and to exhaust all opportunities for its resolution before
bringing the action in court.45cha nroble slaw
The rule is that judicial intervention should only be availed of after
all administrative remedies had been exhausted. The Judiciary must
not intervene because Office Order No. 008 and Office Order No.
005 both concerned the implementation of a provincial executive
policy. Moreover, the non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies resulted in the complaint having no
cause of action.47Hence, the RTC and the CA correctly dismissed the
case.
Villafuerte vs. Robredo, G.R. No. 195390, Dec. 10, 2014
Issue: In challenging the validity of an administrative issuance
carried out pursuant to the agency’s rule making power, must
administrative remedies be first exhausted?
Ruling: There is likewise no merit in the respondent’s claim that the
petitioners’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies warrants the
dismissal of the petition. It bears emphasizing that the assailed
issuances were issued pursuant to the rule-making or quasi-
legislative power of the DILG. This pertains to "the power to make
rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is
within the confines of the granting statute."29 Not to be confused
with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an administrative
agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power.
This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which
the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with
the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and
administering the same law.30 In challenging the validity of
anadministrative issuance carried out pursuant to the agency’s rule-
making power, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies does not stand as a bar in promptly resorting to the filing
of a case in court. This was made clear by the Court in Smart
Communications, Inc. (SMART) v. National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC),31 where it was ruled, thus:
In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation
issued by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust
administrative remedies before going to court. This principle applies
only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was
performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the
assailed act pertained to its rule-making orquasi-legislative power.
Banco de Oro vs. Republic, GR no 198756, Jan 13, 2015
Issue: Does direct resort to the court to challenge the 2011 BIR
Rulings violate the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies?
Ruling: In exceptional cases, however, this court entertained direct
recourse to it when "dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest
of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent
nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate
remedy."164
In Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA)
v. The Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government,165
this court noted that the petition for prohibition was filed directly
before it "in disregard of the rule on hierarchy of courts. However,
[this court] opt[ed] to take primary jurisdiction over the . . . petition
and decide the same on its merits in viewof the significant
constitutional issues raised by the parties dealing with the tax
treatment of cooperatives under existing laws and in the interest of
speedy justice and prompt disposition of the matter."166
Here, the nature and importance of the issues raised167 to the
investment and banking industry with regard to a definitive
declaration of whether government debt instruments are deposit
substitutes under existing laws, and the novelty thereof, constitute
exceptional and compelling circumstances to justify resort to this
court in the first instance.
The tax provision on deposit substitutes affects not only the PEACe
Bonds but also any other financial instrument or product that may
be issued and traded in the market. Due to the changing positions
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue on this issue, there isa need for a
final ruling from this court to stabilize the expectations in the
financial market.
Finally, non-compliance with the rules on exhaustion of
administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts had been rendered
moot by this court’s issuance of the temporary restraining order
enjoining the implementation of the 2011 BIR Ruling. The
temporary restraining order effectively recognized the urgency and
necessity of direct resort to this court.
Diocese of Bacolod vs. Comelec, G.R no. 205728, Jan 21, 2015
Issue: For failing to bring the matter first to the Comelec en banc or
its division, did petitioners violate the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies?
Ruling: No. The argument on exhaustion of administrative remedies
is not proper in this case.
Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is
clear that the controversy is already ripe for adjudication. Ripeness
is the "prerequisite that something had by then been accomplished
or performed by either branch [or in this case, organ of
government] before a court may come into the picture."106
Petitioners’ exercise of their rightto speech, given the message and
their medium, had understandable relevance especially during the
elections. COMELEC’s letter threatening the filing of the election
offense against petitioners is already an actionable infringement of
this right. The impending threat of criminal litigation is enough to
curtail petitioners’ speech.
In the context of this case, exhaustion of their administrative
remedies as COMELEC suggested in their pleadings prolongs the
violation of their freedom of speech.
Political speech enjoys preferred protection within our
constitutional order. In Chavez v. Gonzales,107 Justice Carpio in a
separate opinion emphasized: "[i]f everthere is a hierarchy of
protected expressions, political expression would occupy the
highest rank, and among different kinds of political expression, the
subject of fair and honest elections would be at the top."108
Sovereignty resides in the people.109 Political speech is a direct
exercise of the sovereignty. The principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies yields in order to protect this fundamental
right.
Even assuming that the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is applicable, the current controversy is within the
exceptions to the principle. In Chua v. Ang,110 this court held:
On the other hand, prior exhaustion of administrative remedies may
be dispensed with and judicial action may be validly resorted to
immediately: (a) when there is a violation of due process; (b) when
the issue involved is purely a legal question; (c) when the debated by the publicin the manner they feel would be effective is
administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess one of those cases.
of jurisdiction; (d) when there is estoppel on the part ofthe
administrative agency concerned; (e) when there is irreparable
injury; (f) when the respondent is a department secretary whose Paje vs. Casino, GR No. 207257, etc, Feb. 3, 2015
acts as analter ego of the President bear the implied and assumed
approval of the latter; (g) when to require exhaustion of Issue: can the acts of an agency (DENR) and validity of its issuance
administrative remedies would be unreasonable; (h) when it would (ECC) be challenged via the writ of kalikasan
amount to a nullification of a claim; (i) when the subject matter is a
Issue: was there failure to exhaust administrative remedies?
private land in land case proceedings; (j) whenthe rule does not
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; or (k) when there are Ruling: Yes. It is worth noting that the Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan
circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention."111 allow the parties to raise, on appeal, questions of fact— and, thus,
(Emphasis supplied, citation omitted) constitutes an exception to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court— because
ofthe extraordinary nature of the circumstances surrounding the
The circumstances emphasized are squarely applicable with the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan.118 Thus, we shall review both
present case. First, petitioners allegethat the assailed issuances
questions of law and fact in resolving the issues presented in this
violated their right to freedom of expression and the principle of
case.
separation of church and state. This is a purely legal question.
Second, the circumstances of the present case indicate the urgency In general, the proper procedure to question a defectin an ECC is to
of judicial intervention considering the issue then on the RH Law as follow the appeal process provided in DAO 2003-30 and the Revised
well as the upcoming elections. Thus, to require the exhaustion of Manual. After complying with the proper administrative appeal
administrative remedies in this case would be unreasonable. process, recourse may be made to the courts in accordance with the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, as
Time and again, we have held that this court "has the power to relax
earlier discussed, in exceptional cases, a writ of kalikasan may be
or suspend the rules or to except a case from their operation when
availed of to challenge defects in the ECC providedthat (1) the
compelling reasons so warrant, or whenthe purpose of justice
defects are causally linked or reasonably connected to an
requires it, [and when] [w]hat constitutes [as] good and sufficient
environmental damage of the nature and magnitudecontemplated
cause that will merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon
under the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan, and (2) the case does not
the court".112 Certainly, this case of first impression where
violate, or falls under an exception to, the doctrine of exhaustion of
COMELEC has threatenedto prosecute private parties who seek to
administrative remedies and/or primary jurisdiction.
participate in the elections by calling attention to issues they want
As previously discussed, in the case at bar, only the allegation with
respect to the lack of an EIA relative to the first and second
amendments to the subject ECC may be reasonably connected to
such an environmental damage. Further, given the extreme urgency
of resolving the issue due to the looming power crisis, this case may
be considered as falling under an exception to the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, the aforesaid issue
may be conceivably resolved in a writ of kalikasan case.
More importantly, we have expressly ruled that this case is an
exceptional case due to the looming power crisis, so that the rules
of procedure may be suspended in order to address issues which,
ordinarily, the Court would not consider proper in a writ of
kalikasan case. Hence, all issues, including those not proper in a writ
of kalikasan case, were resolved here in order to forestall another
round of protracted litigation relative to the implementation of the
subject project.
Ruling: No. As previously discussed, in the case at bar, only the
allegation with respect to the lack of an EIA relative to the first and
second amendments to the subject ECC may be reasonably
connected to such an environmental damage. Further, given the
extreme urgency of resolving the issue due to the looming power
crisis, this case may be considered as falling under an exception to
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, the
aforesaid issue may be conceivably resolved in a writ of kalikasan
case.
CudiavsPma GR no 211362 Feb 24, 2015
Issue: Pending Pres. Aquino’s resolution of Cudia’s appeal, should
the court decline jurisdiction for non-exhaustion of the full
administrative process?
Ruling: In general, no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed
or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has
been exhausted. The rationale behind the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is that “courts, for reasons of law, comity,
and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available
administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper
authorities, who are competent to act upon the matter complained
of, have been given the appropriate opportunity to act and correct
their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative
forum.”74 In the U.S. case of Ringgold v. United States,75 which was
cited by respondents, it was specifically held that in a typical case
involving a decision by military authorities, the plaintiff must
exhaust his remedies within the military before appealing to the
court, the doctrine being designed both to preserve the balance
between military and civilian authorities and to conserve judicial
resources.
Petitioners essentially raise the lack of due process in the dismissal
of Cadet 1CL Cudia from the PMA. Thus, it may be a ground to give
due course to the petition despite the non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Yet more significant is the fact that during
the pendency of this case, particularly on June 11, 2014, the Office
of the President finally issued its ruling, which sustained the findings
of the AFP Chief and the CRAB. Hence, the occurrence of this
supervening event bars any objection to the petition based on damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i)
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has
been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and
United Overseas Bank vs. HLURB Board, GR no. 182133, June 23, (1) in quo warranto proceedings.13 re darclaw

2015
The situation in paragraph (e) of the foregoing enumeration obtains
Issue: Is the issue on “whether non-compliance with the clearance in this case.
requirement with the HLURB nullifies the entire mortgage contract”
a purely legal question and an exception to the rule on exhaustion The issue on whether non-compliance with the clearance
of administrative remedies? requirement with the HLURB would result to the nullification of the
entire mortgage contract or only a part of it is purely legal which will
Ruling: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
have to be decided ultimately by a regular court of law. It does not
cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that
involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence
courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their
presented by the parties. There is a question of law when the doubt
functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized
or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts,
areas of their respective competence.11 It has been held, however,
and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said
that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the
question at best could be resolved only tentatively by the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction are not iron-clad rules. In the case of
administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not
Republic v. Lacap,12 the Court enumerated the numerous exceptions
with them but with the courts of justice. Exhaustion of
to these rules, namely: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of
administrative remedies does not apply, because nothing of an
the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged
administrative nature is to be or can be done. The issue does not
administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
require technical knowledge and experience, but one that would
jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official
involve the interpretation and application of law.14There is, thus, no
inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where
need to exhaust administrative remedies, under the premises.
the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule
impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is
purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the
application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable
Ocampovs Enriquez, GR no 225973, etc, Nov. 8, 2016
Issue: Did the petitioners violate the doctrine of exhaustion of
admin remedies in challenging before the SC the issue of the
interment of the late Pres. Marcos at LNMB?
Ruling: No. These exceptions in diocese of bacolod are present in
these consolidated cases. First, these cases involve reviewing the
act of another constitutional organ, that is, the President's exercise
of discretion in allowing Ferdinand E. Marcos' burial at the
LibinganngmgaBayani. Second, these Petitions raise constitutional
questions that would be better decided by this Court, as well as
issues relating to public policy that may be beyond the competence
of the lower courts. These cases are likewise of first impression, and
no jurisprudence yet exists on this matter. Thus, the Petitions
cannot be dismissed by invoking the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
San Miguel vs. Perez GR No. 166836 Sept. 4, 2013
Issue: what is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction? Is it applicable to
this case?
Ruling:Doctrine of primary jurisdiction is applicable
That the action for specific performance was an administrative case
pending in the HLURB, instead of in a court of law, was of no
consequence at all. As earlier mentioned, the action for specific
performance, although civil in nature, could be brought only in the
HLURB. This situation conforms to the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction. There has been of late a proliferation of administrative
agencies, mostly regulatory in function. It is in favor of these
agencies that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is frequently
invoked, not to defeat the resort to the judicial adjudication of
controversies but to rely on the expertise, specialized skills, and
knowledge of such agencies in their resolution. The Court has
observed that one thrust of the proliferation is that the
interpretation of contracts and the determination of private rights
under contracts are no longer a uniquely judicial function
exercisable only by the regular courts.31
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has been increasingly called into
play on matters demanding the special competence of
administrative agencies even if such matters are at the same time
within the jurisdiction of the courts. A case that requires for its
determination the expertise, specialized skills, and knowledge of
some administrative board or commission because it involves
technical matters or intricate questions of fact, relief must first be
obtained in an appropriate administrative proceeding before a
remedy will be supplied by the courts although the matter comes
within the jurisdiction of the courts. The application of the doctrine
does not call for the dismissal of the case in the court but only for its
suspension until after the matters within the competence of the
administrative body are threshed out and determined.32
To accord with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the courts
cannot and will not determine a controversy involving a question
within the competence of an administrative tribunal, the
controversy having been so placed within the special competence of
the administrative tribunal under a regulatory scheme. In that
instance, the judicial process is suspended pending referral to the
administrative body for its view on the matter in dispute.
Consequently, if the courts cannot resolve a question that is within
the legal competence of an administrative body prior to the
resolution of that question by the latter, especially where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative agency to ascertain technical and intricate matters of
fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the
purposes of the regulatory statute administered, suspension or
dismissal of the action is proper.33
Aklan vs. Jody King, GR NO. 197592, Nov. 27, 2013
Issue: is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applicable in this case?
Ruling: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is
such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief
must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a
remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may well be
within their proper jurisdiction.22 It applies where a claim is
originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever
enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which,
under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special
competence of an administrative agency. In such a case, the court in
which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial
process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body
for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged,
dismiss the case without prejudice.
it is the COA and not the RTC which has primary jurisdiction to pass
upon petitioner’s money claim against respondent local government
unit. Such jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties’ failure to
argue the issue nor active participation in the proceedings.
West Tower vs First Phil. Industrial Corp, GR no 194239, June 16,
2015
Issue: is the Court fully equipped w/ the knowledge to finally resolve
the Writ of Kalikasan or should it avail of the special knowledge and
expertise of admin bodies under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction?
Ruling: The DOE is specially equipped to consider FPIC's proper
implementation and compliance with its PIMS and to evaluate the
result of the various tests conducted on the pipeline. The DOE is
empowered by Sec. 12(b)(l), RA 7638 to formulate and implement
policies for the efficient and economical "distribution,
transportation, and storage of petroleum, coal, natural gas."48
Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the DOE possesses technical
knowledge and special expertise with respect to practices in the
transportation of oil through pipelines.The specialized knowledge
and expertise of the foregoing agencies must, therefore, be availed
of to arrive at a judicious decision on the propriety of allowing the
immediate resumption of the WOPL's operation. In a host of cases,
this Court held that when the adjudication of a controversy requires
the resolution of issues within the expertise of an administrative
body, such issues must be investigated and resolved by the
administrative body equipped with the specialized knowledge and
the technical expertise.54 Hence, the courts, although they may
have jurisdiction and power to decide cases, can utilize the findings
and recommendations of the administrative agency on questions
that demand "the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters
of fact."
Somboonsakdikul vs. Orlane, S.A. G.R. No. 188996, Feb. 1, 2017
Issue: As in this case, should the courts of justice respect the
findings of fact of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) --- an
administrative agency?
Ruling: The dissent is correct in emphasizing that We defer to the
findings of fact of administrative agencies considering their
specialized knowledge in their field. And We, as a matter of fact,
acceded to the DOE' s conclusions on the necessity of the conduct
of the various activities and tests enumerated in Sec. Petilla's letter
to this Court dated August 5, 2014. Hence, Our directive for the DOE
to immediately commence the activities enumerated in said Letter,
to determine the pipeline's reliability, and to order its reopening
should the DOE find that such is proper.
ISAA vs Green Peace, G.R. No. 209271 Dec 8, 2015
Issue: were the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of
admin remedies violated in this case?
Ruling: We find that the CA erred when it affirmed the Decision of
the IPO. While it is an established rule in administrative law that the
courts of justice should respect the findings of fact of administrative
agencies, the courts may not be bound by such findings of fact
when there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof or such
evidence is clearly, manifestly and patently insubstantial; and when
there is a clear showing that the administrative agency acted
arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion or in a capricious and
whimsical manner, such that its action may amount to an excess or
lack of jurisdiction.63 Moreover, when there is a showing that the
findings or conclusions, drawn from the same pieces of evidence,
were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record,
they may be reviewed by the courts.64 Such is the case here.
ALFI vs. Garin GR No. 217872, April 26, 2017
Issue: were the certification proceedings conducted by the FDA in
the exercise of its “regulatory powers” and, therefore, beyond
judicial review?
Ruling: On the argument that the certification proceedings were
conducted by the FDA in the exercise of its "regulatory powers" and,
therefore, beyond judicial review, the Court holds that it has the
power to review all acts and decisions where there is a commission
of grave abuse of discretion. No less than the Constitution decrees
that the Court must exercise its duty to ensure that no grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is
committed by any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Such is committed when there is a violation of the constitutional
mandate that "no person is deprived of life, liberty, and property
without due process of law." The Court's power cannot be curtailed
by the FDA's invocation of its regulatory power.