Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

EXCEPTIONS TO EXHAUSTION Castro v. Secretary Gloria, G.R. No.

132174,
August 20, 2001, the Supreme Court said
Nazareno v. CA, 267 SCRA 589 when the
that there is a question of law when the
Undersecretary of Natural Resources denied the
doubts or difference arise as to what the law
motion for reconsideration, he was acting on
is in a certain state of facts. There is a
behalf of the Secretary of Natural Resources;
question of fact when the doubts or differences
accordingly, administrative remedies had been
arise as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts.
exhausted.
In the case, the petitioner was not disputing
Tan v. Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302,
the administrative finding of guilt, but the
where the failure of the petitioner to appeal
correctness of the penalty imposed. He claimed
to the prder of the Secretary of Natural
that the proper penalty for the first offense
Resources to the President of the Philippines
of immoral or disgraceful conduct is only
(who issued Executive Proclamation No. 238,
suspension, not dismissal from service.
withdrawing the area from private exploration
Industrial Power Sales v. Sinsuat, et al., G.R.
and establishing it as Olongapo Watershed
No. L-29171, 15 April 1988 Where the
Forest Reserve) was deemed fatal to the
administrative action is patently illegal,
petition.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction..
Carlo v. Fuentes, 5 SCRA 399, where appeal
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438, the
had already been made to the President, before
inaction of the PCGGNon the motion filed by
the President could act on the Appeal, the
the respondent and co-respondent (it took
same was withdrawn, there was deemed to
seven years before the PCGG filed its motion
have been failure to exhaust administrative
to dismiss based on failure to exhaust
remedies.
administrative remedies) gave rise to
Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v.
unreasonable delay.
Philippine Coconut Authority, 286 SCRA 109,
National Food Authority v. CA, 253 SCRA
where the appeal to the Office of the
470, because the contracts of the security
President had not been acted upon (and
agencies had already been terminated and their
despite follow-up for 2 months, no reply was
replacements were hired, appeal to the Board
received by the petitioner), and in the
of Trustees of the National Food Authority
meantime, the Philippine Coconut Authority,
and to the Secretary of Agriculture was not a
pursuant to the assailed resolution, was issuing
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
certificates of registration indiscriminately, the
course of law. The respondents had to go to
Supreme Court held that the Association of
court to stop the implementation of the new
Philippine Coconut Dessicators was justified in
contracts.
filing the case in court.
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Apex
Vda. De Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission,
Investment and Financing Corporation, G.R. No.
105 Phil 377 Where there is estoppel on the
14922, April 10, 2003 Where there are special
part of the administrative agency.
reasons or circumstances demanding immediate
Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA, 166 SCRA 533
court action. The Supreme Court said that the
Where the issue involved is purely a legal
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
question.
remedies may be disregarded when, as in this that where the law provides for an appeal from
case, (i) there are circumstances indicating the the decisions of administrative bodies to the
urgency of judicial interventionn and (ii) the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals, it
administrative action is patently illegal and means that such bodies are co-equal with the
amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Regional Trial Courts in terms of rank and
In this case, the PARO did not take immediate stature, and logically, beyond the control of
action on the respondent’s protest, and it was the latter. It bears stressing that this Doctrine
only after more than one year that it was of Non-Interference by trial courts with co-
forwarded to DAR. Since then, what petitioner equal administrative bodies is intended to
DARNdid was to require respondent every now ensure judicial stability in the administration of
and then to submit copies of supporting justive whereby the judgment of a court of
documenta which were already attached to its competent jurisdiction may not be opened,
protest. In the meantime, respondent found modified or vacated by any court of concurrent
that the PARO had caused the cancellation of jurisdiction.
its title and that a new one was issued to an
Arboleda v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119509, February
alleged farmer-beneficiary.
11, 1999, when the factual findings of the
1. When due process of law is clearly
NLRC do not agree with those of the Labor
violated.
Arbiter, the Court must, of necessity, review
2. When the rule does not provide a plain,
the records to determine which findings should
speedy and adequate remedy.
be preferred as more conformable to the
Technology Foundation of the Philippines v.
evidentiary facts.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139, January 13,
1. It is not for the reviewing court to
2004, the Supreme Court referred to this as
weigh the conflicting evidence, determine
one of the reasons why there was no necessity
the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise
for the petitioner to exhaust administrative
substitute its judgment for that of the
remedies.
administrative agency on the sufficiency
of evidence.
● Exception: when there is serious
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ground to believe that a possible
DECISIONS
miscarriage of justice would
Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan Electric
thereby result if the Court simply
Power & Light, G.R. No. 127371, April 25,
accepts the administrative body’s
2002, the Supreme Court noted that Sec. 10
full findings
of Executive Order No. 172 (the law creating
2. The administrative decision in matters
the Energy Regulatory Board) provides that a
within the executive jurisdiction can only
review of ERB’s decisions or orders is lodged in
be set aside on proof of grave abuse of
the Supreme Court (now in the Courtof
discretion, fraud, collusion, or error of
Appeals). The Court then reiterated the rule
law.
and conferring of an office involves a delegation
to an individual of some if the sovereign
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
functions of the government, to be exercised
Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas G.R. No. 116418,
by him for the benefit of the public, and that
March 7, 1995 Public Office is the right,
the same portion of the sovereignty of the
authority or duty, created and conferred by
country, either legislative, executive, or judicial,
law, by which for a given period, either fixed
attaches, for the time being, to be exercised
by law or enduring at the pleasure of the
for the public benefit, unless the powers so
creating power, an individual is invested with
conferred are of this nature, the individual is
some sovereign powerof the government to be
not a public officer.
exercised by him for the benefit of the public
().
● Elements:
1) Created by Law or authority of
law;
2) Possess a delegation of a portion
of the sovereign powers of the
government, to be exercised for
the benefit of the public
3) Powers conferred and duties
imposed must be defined, directly
or impliedly, y the legislature or
by legislative authority;
4) Duties must be performed
independently and without control
of a superior power other than
the law, unless they be those of
an inferior or subordinate office
created or authorized by the
legislature, and by it placed under
the general control of a superior
office or body;
5) Must have permanence or
continuity

Laurel v. Desierto, G.R. No. 14536, April 12,


2002, the Supreme Court said that the most
important characteristic which distinguishes an
office from an employment is that the creation