MODULE 4 exhausted first before court's judicial power can be

sought.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
The premature invocation of court's intervention is fatal
DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESORT/ PRMARY to one's cause of action. This doctrine is a relative one
JURISDICTION and its flexibility is called upon by the peculiarity and
PAAT ET AL, VS CA uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a
GR NO. 111107 case.
JANUARY 10, 1997
Hence, it is disregarded:
FACTS:
(1) when there is a violation of due process,
The truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman
while was seized by the DENR personnel because the (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question,
driver could not produce the required documents for the
forest products found concealed in the truck. (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
Petitioner Jovito Layugan, CENRO officer in Aritao,
Cagayan, issued an order of confiscation of the truck (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the
Private respondents, however, failed to submit the administrative agency concerned,
required explanation.
(5) when there is irreparable injury,
The DENR Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary
sustained petitioner Layugan's action of confiscation and
whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the
ordered the forfeiture of the truck. Private respondents
implied and assumed approval of the latter,
filed a letter of reconsideration which was, however,
denied. (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be unreasonable,
Laguyan, petitioner, brought the case to the Secretary of
DENR. Pending the appeal, private respondent filed a (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim,
replevin case against petitioner Layugan and Baggayan
with the RTC of Cagayan, which issued a writ ordering (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case
the return of the truck to private respondents. proceedings,

Petitioner Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan (10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and
filed a motion to dismiss with the trial court contending, adequate remedy, and
inter alia, that private respondents had no cause of (11) when there are circumstances indicating the
action for their failure to exhaust administrative urgency of judicial intervention.
remedies. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss as
well as their motion for reconsideration. A suit for replevin cannot be sustained against the
petitioners for the subject truck taken and retained by
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners them for administrative forfeiture proceedings in
aver that the trial court could not legally entertain the suit pursuant to Section 68-A of the P.D. 705, as amended.
for replevin because the truck was under administrative
seizure proceedings. Dismissal of the replevin suit for lack of cause of action
in view of the private respondents' failure to exhaust
ISSUE: administrative remedies should have been the proper
WON the instant case falls within the exception of the course of action by the lower court instead of assuming
doctrine of administrative remedies. (NO) jurisdiction over the case and consequently issuing the
writ ordering the return of the truck.
RULING:
Moreover, the suit for replevin is never intended as a
This Court has consistently held that before a party is procedural tool to question the orders of confiscation and
allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre- forfeiture issued by the DENR in pursuance to the
condition that he should have availed of all the means of authority given under P.D.705, as amended. Section 8 of
administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a the said law is explicit that actions taken by the Director
remedy within the administrative machinery can still be of the Bureau of Forest Development concerning the
resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned enforcement of the provisions of the said law are subject
every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes to review by the Secretary of DENR and that courts may
within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be not review the decisions of the Secretary except through
a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition.
NOTE: a suit for replevin is founded solely on the claim the position he is holding after having rendered at least
that the defendant wrongfully withholds the property ten years of continuous, efficient and faithful service in
sought to be recovered. such position.

PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION VS Board rendered a Decision GUILTY as charged and

ALO accordingly REVOKES her certificate of registration and
GR NO. 214435 license as professional teacher.
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Dissatisfied, Alo filed a motion for reconsideration which
the Board denied.
FACTS:
Without elevating the case to the PRC, Alo directly filed
Dayamon Didato Alo (Alo) was formally charged with a petition for review with the CA under Rule 43 of the
unprofessional conduct and/or dishonorable conduct Rules of Court.
before the Board for Professional Teachers (Board),
which operates under petitioner Professional Regulation A issued a Minute Resolution28 requiring the Board and
Commission (PRC), for using fraud or deceit in obtaining the PRC, which was impleaded in the petition, to file their
a certificate of registration and professional license. comment on Alo's petition for review. However, since the
Board and the PRC failed to file their comment within the
It was said that Alo used a falsified Board Resolution No. reglementary period, the CA deemed that they waived
671 dated September 28, 2000 when you registered as a the filing of their comment and submitted the instant
professional teacher on September 14, 2007. The case for decision without comment.
original Board Resolution No. 671 dated September 28,
2000 does not contain your name as among those who CA rendered the assailed Decision, granting Alo's
will be registered as professional teachers without petition for review and reversing the ruling of the Board.
examination either in the elementary level or in the
CA held that the evidence on record was utterly
secondary level.
insufficient to sustain the Board's finding that Alo
Alo alleged in her counter-affidavit that she is a holder of committed fraud or falsification in securing her certificate
a degree in Bachelor of Science in Elementary of registration and professional license. The special
Education and had been a public elementary school prosecutor in this case failed to present not only the
teacher in Kalanganan Elementary School from 1995 to alleged falsified Board Resolution No. 671 used by Alo,
2006 before she secured her certificate of registration but also the authentic and original copy of the said board
and professional license. She is currently a public school resolution itself. Toe said documents were never a part
teacher in Tambo Cadayonan Elementary School, of, or attached to the record of the case. Given this, the
Pantar District, Pantar, Lanao del Norte. CA gave credence to Alo's assertion that she never
knew of the existence of the questioned board
Alo allegedly went to the PRC Head Office in Manila to resolution, more so her assertion that she never falsified
apply for a Professional Teacher's License based on the same. Therefore, not only did the prosecutor fail to
Section 26 (C) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7836. RA 7836, prove that there was falsification and that Alo was the
under certain conditions, grants a certificate of one who committed it, the prosecutor also failed to
registration and professional license to qualified present in evidence the corpus delicti of the alleged
applicants without need for examination. Alo, who was falsification.
not a passer of the board examination for professional
teachers, claimed that she knew of some professional PRC filed a motion for reconsideration, wherein they
teachers who were granted permanent appointments attached a copy of the original Board Resolution No.
under the said law and believed that she was qualified to 671. However, this motion was denied.
be extended the same privilege since she has been
Hence, the instant petition.
teaching in the public school from 1995 to 2006. She
averred that when she went to the PRC, she was given PRC argues that the CA has no jurisdiction to directly
forms to fill out and was made to pay various fees. A few review the September 11, 2012 decision of the
days later, she was issued a professional identification Board. To support this contention, the PRC cites Section
card, followed by a certificate of good standing and a 9(c) of RA 8981, which enumerates the powers of the
certificate of membership in the National Organization of Board, including the power to make decisions, and the
Professional Teachers, Inc. mode of appeal of an aggrieved party
Moreover, Alo argued that she already enjoyed security ISSUE:
of tenure which provided that "teachers appointed on a
provisional status for lack of necessary civil service Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction to directly review
eligibility shall be extended permanent appointment for the Board's decision, considering that the same belongs
to the PRC. (YES, but it was not yet timely since they
should have dismissed the case pursuant to the rule in relief through the administrative processes and sparing
exhaustion of administrative remedies) them of the laborious and costly resort to courts.

RULING: Of course, this general rule allows for some

The above-cited provisions by the PRC, while showing exceptions:
that they may have appellate jurisdiction over decisions
or orders of the Board, does not divest the CA of its own (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party
appellate jurisdiction. To put it simply, there is no law invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged
administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
granting the PRC exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or
cases decided by the Board, nor is there any law official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
excluding such cases from being taken cognizance by complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively
the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
Rules of Court. (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f)
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is consistent with the where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the
aforequoted provision, particularly Section 9(3) of BP application of the doctrine may cause great and
129, which grants the CA exclusive appellate jurisdiction irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts
over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or violate due process; (i) where the issue of non-
awards of RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, exhaustion of administrative remedies has been
instrumentalities, boards or commissions. rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is
Rule 43 petition to the CA includes all awards, involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings.
judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized
by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi- However, the records would show that none of these
judicial functions, except those under the Labor Code of exceptions are present in this case. Alo filed the petition
the Philippines. for review with the CA on May 2, 2013 without any
justification or reason on why she did not file an appeal
The Board, by virtue of the power vested in it by the with the PRC instead, considering that the latter is the
provision above, clearly exercised its quasi-judicial proper procedure and it was still within the 15-day
functions when it investigated the case, held a hearing, reglementary period. Not only is this a blatant disregard
and issued a decision that affected the rights of a private of procedural rules, but also a denial of an opportunity
party, herein respondent Alo. for the PRC to review the Board's decision and if
necessary, correct or modify the same, without resorting
Given this, there is no question that the September to the judiciary and unnecessarily adding to the courts'
11, 2012 Decision of the Board is covered by the already clogged dockets. This is definitely contrary to the
jurisdiction of the CA and can be subject of a Rule 43 rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, and thus,
petition. the CA should have dismissed the petition for lack of
cause of action.
Despite having established that the CA has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, the Alo still does not qualify under the law to obtain a
question of giving due course to the Rule 43 petition is a professional teaching license and certificate of
different issue. registration. Moreover, she applied for registration
way beyond the prescriptive period under the law.
The PRC laments the fact that Alo disregarded its
A copy of the original Board Resolution No. 671, which
procedural rules as quoted earlier, and that it was not
given any chance to review the decision of the Board. It was attached to the Board and PRC's motion for
argues that under the rule on exhaustion of reconsideration filed with the CA, provides a list of
administrative agencies, courts must allow the professional teachers without examination who have
administrative agencies to carry out their functions and applied for registration pursuant to Section 26 of RA
discharge their responsibilities within the specialized 7836. The list does not include the name of Alo.
areas of their respective competence; premature resort
to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of Considering the above, there is no doubt that the
action. Board's Decision dated September 11, 2012, finding Alo
guilty and consequently, revoking her certificate of
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative registration and license as a professional teacher, was
remedies is grounded on practical reasons, including supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, there was
allowing the administrative agencies concerned to take no cogent reason for the Board's decision to be reversed
every opportunity to correct its own errors, as well as and set aside by the CA.
affording the litigants the opportunity to avail of speedy
EURO MED LABORATORIES PHIL INC. VS
 PROVINCE OF BATANGAS claim brought it clearly within the ambit of the COA's
GR NO. 148106 jurisdiction.
JULY 17, 2006
First, petitioner was seeking the enforcement of a claim
for a certain amount of money against a local
FACTS: government unit. This brought the case within the COA's
domain to pass upon money claims against the
A civil case was filed for collection of sum of money by
government or any subdivision.
Euro-Med against the Province of Batangas in the
amount of ₱487,662.80 of IVF incurred by respondent in The scope of the COA's authority to take cognizance of
behalf of various public hospitals. claims is circumscribed, however, by an unbroken line of
cases holding statutes of similar import to mean
The same was not paid even after demands were made.
only liquidated claims, or those determined or readily
At the conclusion of petitioner's presentation of determinable from vouchers, invoices, and such other
evidence, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the papers within reach of accounting officers. Petitioner's
complaint on the ground that the primary jurisdiction over claim was for a fixed amount and although respondent
petitioner's money claim was lodged with the took issue with the accuracy of petitioner's summation of
Commission on Audit (COA). Respondent pointed out its accountabilities, the amount thereof was readily
that petitioner's claim, arising as it did from a series of determinable from the receipts, invoices and other
procurement transactions with the province, was documents. Thus, the claim was well within the COA's
governed by the Local Government Code provisions and jurisdiction under the Government Auditing Code of the
COA rules and regulations on supply and property Philippines.
management in local governments. Respondent argued
Second, petitioner's money claim was founded on a
that the case called for a determination of whether these
series of purchases for the medical supplies of
provisions and rules were complied with, and that was
respondent's public hospitals. Both parties agreed that
within the exclusive domain of COA to make.
these transactions were governed by the Local
Finding the motion to be well-taken, the RTC dismissed Government Code provisions on supply and property
the sum of money case without prejudice to the filing of management.
the proper money claim with the COA.
Petitioner's claim therefore involved compliance with
ISSUE: applicable auditing laws and rules on procurement. Such
matters are not within the usual area of knowledge,
WON the COA has primary jurisdiction over the case. experience and expertise of most judges but within the
(YES) special competence of COA auditors and accountants.
Thus, it was but proper, out of fidelity to the doctrine of
RULING:
primary jurisdiction, for the RTC to dismiss petitioner's
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is complaint.
such that its determination requires the expertise,
The court may raise the issue of primary jurisdiction sua
specialized training and knowledge of an administrative
sponte (in its own accord) and its invocation cannot be
body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative
waived by the failure of the parties to argue it as the
proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the
doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power
matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction. It
between judicial and administrative bodies and not for
applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the
the convenience of the parties.
courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the
claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a LIGTAS VS PEOPLE
regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special GR NO. 200751
competence of an administrative agency. In such a case, AUGUST 17, 2015
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 FACTS:
parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the Ligtas was charged with the crime of theft under Article
case without prejudice. 308 of the Revised Penal Code for unlawfully and
This case is one over which the doctrine of primary feloniously harvesting 1,000 kilos of abaca fibers, valued
jurisdiction clearly held sway for although petitioner's at Php29,000.00 at Php29.00 per kilo, without the
collection suit for P487,662.80 was within the jurisdiction consent of said owner, Anecita Pacate.
of the RTC, the circumstances surrounding petitioner's
The DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform reopening of a matter once judicially determined by
Adjudication Board) rendered the Decision ruling that competent authority applies as well to the judicial and
Ligtas was a bona fide tenant of the land. quasi-judicial facts of public, executive or administrative
officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction as to
The Regional Trial Court held that the prosecution was the judgments of courts having general judicial powers.
able to prove the elements of theft and held Ligtas guilty
thereof. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Res judicata embraces two concepts:
trial Court. The Court of Appeals declared that Ligtas' (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39,
reliance on the DARAB Decision declaring him as a Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and
bonafide tenant of the land is irrelevant in the case at
bar. Hence, this case. (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section
47(c).
Petitioner argues that he has sufficiently established his
status as private complainant's tenant.The DARAB There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the
Decision is entitled to respect, even finality, as the first case where the judgment was rendered and the
Department of Agrarian Reform is the administrative second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity
of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this
agency vested with primary jurisdiction and has acquired
instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an
expertise on matters relating to tenancy relationship. absolute bar to the second action. But where there is
identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no
The findings of the DARAB were also supported by identity of causes of action, the first judgment is
substantial evidence. To require petitioner to prove conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly
tenancy relationship through evidence other than the controverted and determined and not as to matters
DARAB Decision and the testimonies of the witnesses is merely involved therein. This is the concept of res
absurd and goes beyond the required quantum of judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated
evidence, which is substantial evidence. differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly
adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination
Also, according to petitioner, the DARAB Decision has of an action before a competent court in which judgment
attained finality since private complainant did not file an is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the
appeal. The DARAB's finding as to the parties' tenancy judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between
the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim,
relationship constitutes as res judicata.
demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is
ISSUE: the same.

WON the DARAB Decision, finding petitioner Monico The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment
Ligtas as tenant of the land owned by private sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the
complainant Anecita Pacate and located at Sitio Lamak, decision must have been rendered by a court having
Barangay San Juan, Sogod, Southern Leyte is jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3)
conclusive or can be taken judicial notice of in a criminal the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the
merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and
case for theft. (YES).
second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and
RULING: causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject
matter, and causes of action be shown in the two cases,
We hold that a DARAB decision on the existence of a then res judicata in its aspect as a "bar by prior
tenancy relationship is conclusive and binding on courts judgment" would apply.
if supported by substantial evidence.
If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can
The Supreme Court ruled that in this case, the findings be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res
of the DARAB were supported by substantial evidence. judicata as "conclusiveness of judgment" applies. In the
Generally, decisions in administrative cases are not DARAB, there being no appeal interposed therefrom,
binding on criminal proceedings. However, this case attained finality. Accordingly, the matter regarding the
does not involve an administrative charge stemming status of Ligtas as a tenant farmer and the validity of the
from the same set of facts involved in a criminal CLT and Emancipation Patents issued in his favor are
proceeding. Significantly, respondent did not appeal the settled and no longer open to doubt and controversy.
Decision of the DARAB; consequently, the same has The Supreme Court granted the petition.
attained finality and constitutes res judicata on the issue
of petitioner's status as a tenant of respondent. PROVINCIAL BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION VS
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT.
Res judicata is a concept applied in the review of lower GR NO. 202275
court decisions in accordance with the hierarchy of JULY 17, 2018
courts. But jurisprudence has also recognized the rule of
administrative res judicata: The rule which forbids the FACTS:
 Petitioners add that the initial implementation of
To ensure road safety and address the risk-taking Department Order No. 118-12 within Metro Manila
behavior of bus drivers as its declared objective, the allegedly creates an arbitrary distinction between bus
LTFRB issued Memorandum Circular requiring "all operators operating in Metro Manila and those operating
Public Utility Bus (PUB) operators ... to secure Labor outside of Metro Manila, in violation of petitioners' right to
Standards Compliance Certificates" under pain of equal protection of the laws.
revocation of their existing certificates of public
convenience or denial of an application for a new Respondents counter that petitioners have no legal
certificate. standing to file the present Petition considering that
Department Order No. 118-12 and Memorandum
This Memorandum Circular covers all Public Utility Bus Circular No. 2012-001 are directed against bus
(PUB) Operators and is being issued to ensure road operators, not against associations of bus operators
safety through linking of labor standards compliance with such as petitioners. They add that petitioners violated
franchise regulation. the doctrine of hierarchy courts in directly filing their
Petition before this Court. For these reasons,
Five days later, the DOLE issued a Department Order respondents pray for the dismissal of the Petition.
elaborating on the part-fixed-part-performance-based
compensation system referred to in the LTFRB ISSUE:
Memorandum Circular.
WON this case falls under any of the exceptions to the
The department order contained among others, provides doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
for the rule for computing the fixed and the performance-
based component of a public utility bus driver's or WON etitioners Provincial Bus Operators Association of
conductor's wage. the Philippines, Southern Luzon Bus Operators
Association, Inc., Inter City Bus Operators Association,
Atty. Emmanuel A. Mahipus, on behalf of the Provincial and City of San Jose Del Monte Bus Operators
Bus Operators Association of the Philippines (and other Association have legal standing to sue.
organizations for the operators) wrote to then Secretary
of Labor and Employment Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, RULING:
requesting to defer the implementation of Department
Order. The request, however, was not acted upon. This Court dismisses the Petition. Petitioners fail to
respect the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by directly
Meanwhile, in compliance with the Department order, the invoking this Court's jurisdiction without any special
National Wages and Productivity Commission issued reason. They fail to present an actual controversy ripe
NWPC Guidelines for the suggested formulae for for adjudication and do not even have the requisite
computing the fixed-based and the performance-based standing to file this case. Even if this Court proceeds on
components of a bus driver's or conductor's wage. the merits, petitioners fail to show the unconstitutionality
of the DOLE Department Order No. 118-12 and the
Petitioners filed before this Court a Petition with Urgent LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001.
Request for Immediate Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction Discussion of the doctrines of primary jurisdiction
impleading the DOLE and the LTFRB as and exhaustion of administrative remedies aside, the
respondents. They pray that this Court enjoin the present case does not require the application of
implementation of Department Order and Memorandum either doctrine. Department Order No. 118-12 and
Circular for being violative of their right to due process, Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 were issued in the
equal protection, and non-impairment of obligation of exercise of the DOLE's and the LTFRB's quasi-
contracts. legislative powers and, as discussed, the doctrines of
primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative
remedies may only be invoked in matters involving
Particularly with respect to Department Order No. 118- the exercise of quasi-judicial power. Specifically,
12, its provisions on the payment of part-fixed-part- Department Order No. 118-12 enforces the application of
performance-based wage allegedly impair petitioners' labor standards provisions, i.e., payment of minimum
obligations under their existing collective bargaining wage and grant of social welfare benefits in the public
agreements where they agreed with their bus drivers and bus transportation industry. For its part, Memorandum
conductors on a commission or boundary basis. They Circular No. 2012-001 was issued by the LTFRB in the
contend that Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 further exercise of its power to prescribe the terms and
requires compliance with Department Order No. 118-12 conditions for the issuance of a certificate of public
under threat of revocation of their franchises, which convenience and its power to promulgate and enforce
allegedly deprive petitioners of the capital they invested rules and regulations on land transportation public
in their businesses in violation of their right to due utilities.
process of law.
While resort to courts may directly be availed of in Respondent Alert and Concerned Employees for Better
questioning the constitutionality of an administrative rule, Social Security System (ACCESS) filed with the Bureau
parties may not proceed directly before this Court, of Labor Relations a petition for certification election to
regardless of its original jurisdiction over certain matters. determine the sole and exclusive bargaining
This Court's original jurisdiction over petitions for representative of the rank and file employees of
certiorari and Prohibition may only be invoked for special respondent Social Security System (SSS).
reasons under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

For this Court to take cognizance of original actions,

parties must clearly and specifically allege in their
petitions the special and important reasons for such
direct invocation. One such special reason is that the
case requires "the proper legal interpretation of
constitutional and statutory provisions." Cases of
national interest and of serious implications, and those of
transcendental importance and of first impression have
likewise been resolved by this Court on the first instance.

In exceptional cases, this Court has also overlooked the

rule to decide cases that have been pending for a
sufficient period of time. This Court has resolved original
actions which could have been resolved by the lower
courts in the interest of speedy justice and avoidance of
delay.

Generally, the rule on hierarchy of courts may be relaxed

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." For all other cases, the parties
must have exhausted the remedies available before the
lower courts. A petition filed in violation of the doctrine
shall be dismissed.

Based on the allegations in the present Petition, this

Court finds no special reason for petitioners to invoke
this Court's original jurisdiction.

The alleged "far-reaching consequences" and wide "area

of coverage" of Department Order No. 118-12 and
Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 are not special
reasons. With these justifications, petitioners could have
very well filed their Petition before the Court of Appeals
whose writs, as discussed, are likewise nationwide in
scope. The issues raised are not even of first
impression.

Petitioners, therefore, failed to respect the hierarchy of

courts.

EXCEPTION TO EXHAUSTION

SSS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS BATHAN

VELASCO
GR NO. 108765
AUGUST 27, 1999

FACTS: