EXCEPTIONS TO EXHAUSTION

1. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

 Definition: Department Secretaries are alter egos or assistants of the President and their acts are
presumed to be those of the latter unless disapproved or reprobated by him.
o Nazareno v. CA, 267 SCRA 589 when the Undersecretary of Natural Resources denied
the motion for reconsideration, he was acting on behalf of the Secretary of Natural
Resources; accordingly, administrative remedies had been exhausted.
o Exception: where the law expressly provides for exhaustion.
 In Tan v. Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302, where the failure of the petitioner
to appeal to the prder of the Secretary of Natural Resources to the President of
the Philippines (who issued Executive Proclamation No. 238, withdrawing the
area from private exploration and establishing it as Olongapo Watershed Forest
Reserve) was deemed fatal to the petition.
 In Carlo v. Fuentes, 5 SCRA 399, where appeal had already been made to the
President, before the President could act on the Appeal, the same was withdrawn,
there was deemed to have been failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
o Exception to the exception: in Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v.
Philippine Coconut Authority, 286 SCRA 109, where the appeal to the Office of the
President had not been acted upon (and despite follow-up for 2 months, no reply was
received by the petitioner), and in the meantime, the Philippine Coconut Authority,
pursuant to the assailed resolution, was issuing certificates of registration
indiscriminately, the Supreme Court held that the Association of Philippine Coconut
Dessicators was justified in filing the case in court.
2. Where the administrative remedy is fruitless
 E.g., suit for recovery of title to office must be instituted within one year from illegal ouster,
otherwise the action prescribes.
3. Where there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency (Vda. De Tan v. Veterans
Backpay Commission, 105 Phil 377).
4. Where the issue involved is purely a legal question (Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA, 166 SCRA
533).
 In Castro v. Secretary Gloria, G.R. No. 132174, August 20, 2001, the Supreme Court said that
there is a question of law when the doubts or difference arise as to what the law is in a certain
state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubts or differences arise as to the truth or
falsity of alleged facts. In the case, the petitioner was not disputing the administrative finding of
guilt, but the correctness of the penalty imposed. He claimed that the proper penalty for the first
offense of immoral or disgraceful conduct is only suspension, not dismissal from service.
5. Where the administrative action is patently illegal, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
(Industrial Power Sales v. Sinsuat).
6. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction.
 In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438, the inaction of the PCGGNon the motion filed by
the respondent and co-respondent (it took seven years before the PCGG filed its motion to
dismiss based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies) gave rise to unreasonable delay.
7. Where there is irreparable injury or threat thereof, unless judicial recourse is immediately made.
 In National Food Authority v. CA, 253 SCRA 470, because the contracts of the security agencies
had already been terminated and their replacements were hired, appeal to the Board of Trustees of
the National Food Authority and to the Secretary of Agriculture was not a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the course of law. The respondents had to go to court to stop the
implementation of the new contracts.
8. In land cases, where the subject matter is private land.
 9. Where the law does not make exhaustion a condition precedent to judicial recourse, or where no
administrative review is provided by law.
 An example is where the law per senprovides no administrative review for administrative cases
whereby an employee is covered by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations and penalized
with a suspension of not more than 30 days.
10. Where the observamce of the doctrine will result in the nullification of the claim.
11. Where there are special reasons or circumstances demanding immediate court action.
 In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Apex Investment and Financing Corporation, G.R. No.
14922, April 10, 2003, the Supreme Court said that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies may be disregarded when, as in this case, (i) there are circumstances indicating the
urgency of judicial interventionn and (ii) the administrative action is patently illegal and amounts
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
o In this case, the PARO did not take immediate action on the respondent’s protest, and it
was only after more than one year that it was forwarded to DAR. Since then, what
petitioner DARNdid was to require respondent every now and then to submit copies of
supporting documenta which were already attached to its protest. In the meantime,
respondent found that the PARO had caused the cancellation of its title and that a new
one was issued to an alleged farmer-beneficiary.
12. When due process of law is clearly violated.
13. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
 In Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139,
January 13, 2004, the Supreme Court referred to this as one of the reasons why there was no
necessity for the petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies.

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Rule
 Except when the Constitution requires or allows it, judicial review may be granted or withheld as
the Congress chooses.
 Thus, the law may provide that a determination made by an administrative agency shall be final
and irreviewable.
o There is no violation of due process.
 However, Sec. 1, par. 2, Art. VIII, Philippine Constitution, which provides that “the judicial
power of the courts of justice to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any agency or
instrumentality of government,” clearly means that judicial review of administrative decisions
cannot be denied to the courts when there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion.
Bases for Judicial Review
1. Constitution
 For instance, Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, Constitution, provides: “xxx unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by Law, any decision, order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of the copy
thereof.”
2. Statutes
3. General Principles of Law
 There is an underlying power in the Courts to scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies on
questions of law and jurisdiction although no right of review is given by statute. This is designed
to keep theadministrative agency within its jurisdiction and to protect substantial rightsof parties
affected by its decisions. It is part of the system of checks and balances which restricts the
separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudication.
Methods of Obtaining Judicial Review
Statutory or Non-statutory
a) Statutory – available pursuant to specific statutory provisions.
b) Non-statutory – where there is no express statute granting review, relief is obtained by means of
cthe common law remedies, or by the prerogative writs of certiorari, mandamus, habeas corpus,
quo warranto, or prohibition.
Note: if statutory methods for judicial review are available, they are generally exclusive, and the use of
non-statutory methods will not likely be permitted.
Direct or Collateral
a) Direct – attempt to question in subsequent proceedings the administrative action fir lack of
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, etc.
b) Collateral – relief from administrative action sought in a proceeding the primary purpose of
which is some relief other thsn the setting aside of the judgment, although an attack on the
judgment may be incidentally involved, e.g., a damage suit against the administrative officials
What Court has Jurisdiction
1. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court of Appeals shall have
appellate jurisdiction over judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from
awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.
2. In Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan Electric Power & Light, G.R. No. 127371, April 25,
2002, the Supreme Court noted that Sec. 10 of Executive Order No. 172 (the law creating the
Energy Regulatory Board) provides that a review of ERB’s decisions or orders is lodged in the
Supreme Court (now in the Courtof Appeals). The Court then reiterated the rule that where the
law provides for an appeal from the decisions of administrative bodies to the Supreme Court or to
the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts in
terms of rank and stature, and logically, beyond the control of the latter. It bears stressing that this
Doctrine of Non-Interference by trial courts with co-equal administrative bodies is intended to
ensure judicial stability in the administration of justive whereby the judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent
jurisdiction.
Questions Which May Be Subject of Judicial Review
1. Questions of Law
2. Questions of Fact
 Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally conclusive upon the courts if supported
by substantial evidence; thus, the courts are precluded from reviewing questions of fact, except:
o When expressly allowed by statute
o Fraud, imposition or mistake other than error of judgment in evaluating the evidence
o Error in appreciation of the pleadings and in interpretation of the documentary evidence
presented by the parties
3. Mixed Questions of Law and Fact (Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts): where what
purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a question
of law as to be in substance and effect a decision on the latter, the Court will, in order to decide
the legal question, examine the entire record including the evidence of necessary.
Guidelines for the Exercise if the Power
1. Findings of fact are respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if not
overwhelming or preponderant.
 However, the principle that factual findings of administrative bodies are binding upon
the Court may be sustained only when no issue of credibility is raised. Thus, in Arboleda
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119509, February 11, 1999, when the factual findings of the NLRC
do not agree with those of the Labor Arbiter, the Court must, of necessity, review the
records to determine which findings should be preferred as more conformable to the
evidentiary facts.
 2. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of
witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency on the
sufficiency of evidence.
 Exception: when there is serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice
would thereby result if the Court simply accepts the administrative body’s full findings
3. The administrative decision in matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on
proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, collusion, or error of law.
Judicial Review is Not Trial De Novo
It is merely an ascertainment of whether the findings of the administrative agency are consistent with law,
free from fraud or imposition, and supported by evidence.

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Public Office
 The right, authority orduty, created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either
fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with
some sovereign powerof the government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public
(Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas G.R. No. 116418, March 7, 1995).
 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
Creation of Public Offices
1) By the Constitution
2) Valid Statutory Enactments
3) Authority of Law
Public Officer
A public Officer is a person who holds a public office.
 Distinguished from Public Officer as understood in Criminal Law
 Art. 203, RPC - any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public
functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said
Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
 Sec. 2, R.A. 3019 - "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt
service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the
preceding subparagraph.
 Distinguished from Clerk or Employee
 Sec. 2 (14), Administrative Code – refers to a person whose duties, not being of a clerical
or manual nature, involves the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions
of the government. When used with reference to a person having authority to do a
particular act or perform a particular function in the exercise of governmental power,
"officer" includes any government employee, agent or body having authority to do the act
or exercise that function.
o In 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 and conferring of an office involves a delegation
to an individual of some if the sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public, and that the same portion of the
sovereignty of the country, either legislative, executive, or judicial, attaches, for
the time being, to be exercised for the public benefit, unless the powers so
conferred are of this nature, the individual is not a public officer.