IRREPARABLE DAMAGE OR INJURY; EXCEPTION TO EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

While as a rule of petition for cetiorari which is interposed to dispute the validity of an order or decision that may be rendered by an administrative official in pursuance of the powers and duties with which he is invested cannot be entertained if the party in interest fails to avail of the administrative remedies officials are the most competent to pass upon matters that exclusively come within their jurisdiction, such rule may be relaxed when its application may cause great and irreparable damage which cannot otherwise be prevented except by taking the opportune appropriate court action. Stated otherwise, the rule is inapplicable if it should appear that an irreparable damageand injury will be suffered by a party if he should await, before taking court action, the final action of the administrative official concerned on the matter. (G.R. No. L-21653 May 31, 1965 DE LARA, JR., et al. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, et al.)

NATURE OF IRREPARABLE INJURY. By "irreparable injury" is not meant such injury as is beyond the possibility of repair, or beyond possible compensation in damages, nor necessarily great injury or great damage, but that species of injury, whether great or small, that ought not be submitted to on the one hand or inflicted on the other; and, because it is so large on the one hand, or so small on the other, is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law. (This definition was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Donovan vs.Pennsylvania Co., (199 U.S., 279), in which the injury complained of was continuous in its nature.) With respect to the contention that an injunction may only be granted to prevent irreparable injury, the answer is that any continuing breach of a valid negative covenant is irreparable by the ordinary process of courts of law. As stated by High, (vol. 2, p. 906) injunctive relief is granted in cases like this "upon the ground that the parties cannot be placed in status quo, and that damages at law can afford no adequate compensation, the injury being a continuous one irreparable by the ordinary process of courts of law." [G.R. No. 13228, September 13, 1918 Olendorf v. Abrahamson; Gilchrist vs. Cuddy (29 Phil. rep., 542), at page 552, this court said, citing with approval the case of Wahle vs. Reinbach (76 Ill., 322)]