DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

A. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:

 Where a remedy within an administrative agency is provided by law or available against the action of an
administrative board, body, or officer; and can still be resorted to by giving the said agency every opportunity to
decide correctly a given matter that comes within its jurisdiction, relief must first sought by availing this remedy
before elevating to the courts of justice for review.
 Allowing the administrative agency to carry out its functions and discharge its responsibilities within the specialized
areas of its competence before resort can be made to the courts;

B. Reasons of this requirement:

 Based on a sound public policy and practical grounds;

 It determines at what stage a person may secure review of administrative action and for promotion of proper
relationships within the administrative agencies and the courts of justice;
 It involves the policy of: (a) orderly procedure which favors a preliminary administrative sifting process; (b)
avoidance of interference with functions of the admin agency by withholding judicial action until the administrative
process has run its course; (c) prevention of attempts to swamp the courts by a resort to them in the first instance.
 Availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides speedier disposition of controversies;
 Separation of powers: comity requires that courts stays their hands until the administrative processes have been
completed;

C. Non-observance of the doctrine jurisdictional?

 No. It has been held that failure of a party to exhaust administrative remedies provided by law therefor affects this
cause of action, not the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. Hence, such failure is a ground for dismissal of
the action for lack of cause of action which of the grounds of the RoC for the dismissal of complaint (Atlas
Consolidated Mining vs. Mendoza [1961], Pilar vs. Secretary of Public Works [1967], DARAB vs. CA [1997])

D. Exceptions to the Doctrine:

 The rule is not a hard and fast one but a relative one.
 (1) Where the terms of the statute authorizing an administrative remedy is not exclusive but merely cumulative,
permissive or concurrent to a judicial remedy, or there is grave doubt as to the availability of the administrative
remedy;
 (2) Where the issue involves not a question of fact but one of a pure law; Issues of law cannot be resolved with finality
by an administrative officer;
 (3) Where the issue raised is the constitutionality of the statute;
o Where what assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative
agency in the exercise of its quasi-legislative power, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the
same, BUT AN ACT PERFORMED BY IT PURSUANT TO ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION IS SUBJECT TO
EXHAUSTION DOCTRINE;
 (4) Where questions involved are essentially judicial;
 (5) Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine or where the administrative agency is in
estoppel to invoke the doctrine;
 (6) If it should appear that an irreparable damage or injury will be suffered by the party unless resort to the court is
immediately made;
 (7) In circumstances where there is no other pain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
 (8) Where respondent officer acted in utter disregard of due process;
 (9) Where insistence on its observance would result in the nullification of the claim being asserted;
 (10) Where there is long-continued and unreasonable delay or official inaction that will unretrievably prejudice the
complainant;
 (11) Special reasons demanding immediate judicial intervention;
 (12) Where the amount involved is relatively small so that to require administrative exhaustion would be oppressive
and unreasonable;
 (13) When no administrative review (usually by President or Executive Secretary) 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) 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; (Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency)
 (16) Where the administrative officer has not rendered any decision or made any final finding of any sort;
 (17) Where plaintiff in the civil action for damages has no administrative remedy available to him;
 (18) Where strong public interest is involved;

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

 The doctrine of prior resort or exclusive administrative jurisdiction. It usually refers to cases involving specialized
disputes which are referred to an administrative agency of special competence to resolve the same;
 Applies where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. The objective is to guide
a court in determining whether it should refrain or not from exercising its jurisdiction over a matter or controversy.
 Courts cannot and will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, expertise and service of the tribunal.
 Reasons:
o Separation of Powers;
o To take full advantage of the administrative expertise;
o To attain uniformity of application of regulatory laws which can be secure only if determination of the issue is
left to the administrative body;
 Where the doctrine inapplicable:
o Application involves exercise of judicial discretion;
o Issues involve questions of law;
o Where concurrent jurisdiction conferred;