Primary Jurisdiction

and Exhaustion of
Administrative
Remedies
REPORTED BY:
MARK HOWELL L. ESGUERRA
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

 The plaintiff should first seek relief in an administrative proceeding before he

seeks a remedy in court, even though the matter presented is within the courts
jurisdictions
 This is due to the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper
administrative bodies are required since it involves technical matters or intricate
facts.
 The Judicial process of cases subjected to the competence of the administrative
agencies as suspended pending to the referral of the administrative agency
 The Purpose of this doctrine is to avoid premature and unnecessary resort to the
court
Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
 The question demands administrative determination requiring
special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative
tribunal.
 The questions requires determination of technical and intricate issue
of facts
 Uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the
regulatory stature administered
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals

 In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential trend to apply this

doctrine to cases involving matters that demand the special
competence of administrative agencies even if the question
involved is also judicial in character. 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 body; in such case, the judicial
process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the
administrative body for its view
Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals

 In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court
cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction
over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence. In Machete vs. Court of Appeals, the Court upheld the primary
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB)
in an agrarian dispute over the payment of back rentals under a leasehold
contract. In Concerned Officials of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System vs. Vasquez, the Court recognized that the MWSS was in the best position
to evaluate and to decide which bid for a waterworks project was compatible
with its development plan.
 The rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application in
this case, since the questions on the identity of the land in dispute and the
factual qualification of private respondent as an awardee of a sales application
require a technical determination by the Bureau of Lands as the administrative
agency with the expertise to determine such matters because these issues
preclude prior judicial determination, it behooves the courts to stand aside even
when they apparently have statutory power to proceed, in recognition of the
primary jurisdiction of the administrative agency
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies
 The court action cannot prosper until all remedies at the administrative level has
been exhausted.
 The aggrieved party must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative
procedure to obtain relief but must pursue them to the appropriate conclusion
before seeking judicial intervention.
 Where the enabling statutes indicates a procedure for administrative review and
system for appeal or reconsideration the court for the reason of law, comity and
convenience will not entertain a case unless all the administrative remedies has
been resorted and the appropriate administrative agency has been given a
chance to correct its errors
Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
 This calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in
the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before
the same may be elevated to the courts of justices for review
Exhaustion of
Primary
Administrative
Jurisdiction
remedies

The claim is cognizable Claim is cognizable in

in the first instance by the court but judicial
the administrative process being
agency alone. suspended.

Judicial Process being

The suspension is due
withheld until the
to the pending referral
administrative process
of certain issues to the
has run its course and
administrative agency
agency reaction is
for its review
ripe.
Ambil, jr. vs Comelec (GR 143398)

 In a long line of cases, this Court has held consistently that before a
party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-
condition that he should have availed of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within
the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the
administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a
matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should
be exhausted first before the courts judicial power can be
sought. The premature invocation of courts intervention is fatal to
ones cause of action
Effect of failure to exhaust
remedies
 The failure to observe does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
 The effect is on the non-compliance is that it will deprive the
complainant of a cause of action which will be a ground for a
motion to dismiss. (if not invoked in time, the motion is deemed to
be waived)
Factoran, Jr. vs. CA (GR 93540)

“The petitioners did not file a motion to dismiss based on the ground of
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, it is deemed waived”
Reason for the rule

 The observance of the mandate its to ensure orderly which favors a

preliminary shifting process, particularly with respect to matters
peculiarly within the competence of the administrative agency,
avoidance of interference with functions of the administrative
agency by withholding judicial action until the administrative
process had run its course and the prevention of attempts to swamp
the courts by a resort to them in the first instance.
 This intends to provide less expensive process and more speedy
solutions to disputes
 It gives the administrative agency a chance to correct itself
 The separation of powers which enjoins upon the judiciary
becoming policy of non-interference with maters coming primarily
with the competence of the other departments
Exception to the rule

 Where the public interest requires immediate court resolution

 Where administrative act is a nullity
 Where administrative remedy is not adequate
 Judicial relief is required to prevent violence
 Where agency acted with no Jurisdiction
 Where there is no administrative order yet
 Where there is estoppel
 Where there is urgency or irreparable damage
Exception to the rule

 Where qualified political doctrine applies

 Where the issue is purely legal
 Where the administrative remedy is permissive
 Where doctrine will result in nullification of claims
 In quo warranto cases
 Where there is no law requiring remedies
 Where agency has no jurisdiction
PAAT vs. CA (GR 111107)
 This Court in a long line of cases has consistently held that before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can
still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a
matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before courts
judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of courts intervention is fatal to ones cause
of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for
lack of cause of action. This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without its
practical and legal reasons, for one thing, availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses
and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. It is no less true to state that the courts of
justice for reasons of comity and convenience will shy away from a dispute until the system of
administrative redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the administrative
agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and to dispose of the case. However, we are
not amiss to reiterate that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies as tested by a
battery of cases is not an ironclad rule. This doctrine is a relative one and its flexibility is called upon by
the peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case.
PAAT vs. CA (GR 111107)

 Hence, it is disregarded (1) when there is a violation of due

process, (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question, (3)
when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency concerned, (5) when there is irreparable
injury,(6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose
acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed
approval of the latter,when to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be unreasonable, (8) when it would amount to a
nullification of a claim,(9) when the subject matter is a private land
in land case proceedings, (10) when the rule does not provide a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when there are
circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
Arrow Transportation Corp. Vs.
Board of transportation (GR 39655)
 The question of whether the controversy is ripe for judicial
determination was likewise argued by the parties. For it is
undeniable that at the time the petition was filed. there was
pending with the respondent Board a motion for reconsideration.
Ordinarily, its resolution should be awaited. Prior thereto, an
objection grounded on prematurity can be raised. Nonetheless,
counsel for petitioner would stress that certiorari lies as the failure to
observe procedural due process ousted respondent Board of
whatever jurisdiction it could have had in the premises. This Court
was impelled to go into the merits of the controversy at this stage,
not only because of the importance of the issue raised but also
because of the strong public interest in having the matter settled
Judicial Review

 Means a re-consideration or re-examination for purposes of

correction.
 Courts may determine the legality or propriety of the exercise of
discretion by the political department of government.
 For administrative act, rules and decisions, it is the re-examination or
determination by the courts in the exercise of their judicial power in
an appropriate case instituted by the aggrieved party.
Acts, Rules and Decisions Subject
to judicial review
 Any agency actions can be subjected to Judicial review. This
includes:
 Agency rules
 Orders
 Licenses
 Sanctions
 Relief
 Can be non-judicial which consist of purely administrative or
executive acts
 Can be quasi-judicial which includes final orders or decisions
rendered by the agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial power.
Methods of Judicial Review

 The methods can vary depending on the statutes and the nature of
agency sought to be reviewed.
 Ordinary court action
 Appeal
 Petition for certiorari
 Petition for review
 Petition for prohibition
 Petition for Mandamus
 Silence in Law does not necessarily imply that the review is
unavailable.
Ordinary Injunction

 Usual remedy for purely administrative act of an agency or against

a rule or regulation issued in the exercise of its rule making power as
differentiated from a ruling or decision promulgated in the exercise
of a quasi-judicial power.
 In Filipinas Engineering vs. Ferrer, The court held that the RTC has
jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit for an injunction against the
Commission of Election.
 In Lupangco v, CA, the court says that the same remedy applies
where what is questioned is the rule or regulation issued by an
administrative agency in exercise of quasi-legislative or rule making
power
Appeal

May be availed of, where the enabling statute specifically provides

that decisions of the quasi-judicial body may be appealed as an
ordinary civil case within a specified period.
Thank
you!