Assignment no.

Administrative Law

Submitted to:

Atty. Judiel Pareja

Submitted by:

Pierre Judd B. Alvizo

Section M3

March 6, 2020
 1. Compare and contrast the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if an administrative tribunal has jurisdiction over a
controversy, courts should not resolve the issue even if it may be within its proper jurisdiction. The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies on the other hand holds that a party must first avail of
all administrative processes available before seeking the courts' intervention. The administrative officer
concerned must be given every opportunity to decide on the matter within his or her jurisdiction otherwise
their cause of action becomes defective.

Both doctrines involve the relationship of courts and administrative agencies, especially on matters
requiring expert technical knowledge. Although application of the rule results in practically the same
effect, the doctrines are nevertheless not to be confused with each other. The doctrine of exhaustion is
invoked as a defense to judicial review of an administrative action not yet deemed complete meaning that
matter is cognizable first in the administrative agency alone. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction arises
when both the court and administrative agency both have jurisdiction on a particular issue (and not the
whole proceeding unlike the doctrine of exhaustion).

2. There are many specific instances when, by the decision of the Supreme Court, the
doctrine of exhaustion of remedies has been held inapplicable even if there is general
requirement of its observance. Enumerate the established exceptions of this doctrine.

(1) Where the administrative remedy is merely permissive or there is grave doubt as to its availability
(2) When the issue involves one of purely law and not of fact
(3) Where the issue raised is the constitutionality of the statute under which the administrative
agency acts
(4) Where questions involved are essentially judicial
(5) Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine or when administrative body
is in estoppel in invoking the doctrine
(6) If it should appear that an irreparable damage or injury will be suffered by a party unless resort to
the court is immediately made
(7) In special circumstances where there is no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law
(8) Where respondent officer acted in utter disregard of due process as where one had been
dismissed without any administrative charges having filed nor any investigation conducted
(9) Where insistence on its observance would result in the nullification of the claim being asserted, as
where the period within which to bring the case to court is limited by law, said period not being
interrupted by the filing of any administrative remedy
(10) When there is long-continued and unreasonable delay or official inaction that will prejudice the
complainant
(11) When there are special reasons or circumstances demanding immediate judicial intervention
(12) Where the amount involved is relatively small so that to require exhaustion would be oppressive
and unreasonable
(13) When no administrative review is provided as a condition precedent to the taking of an action in
court
(14) In land cases, where the land subject of litigation is not part of the public domain
(15) Involves possessory actions of public lands which are limited to a determination of who has the
actual physical possession or occupation of the land in question
(16) Where the respondent is a Department Secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the President,
bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him
(17) Where the administrative officer has not rendered any decision, or made any final finding of any
sort
(18) Where plaintiff in the civil action for damages has no administrative remedy available to him
(19) Where a strong public interest is involved