DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF DOCTRINE OF DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE

ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES ANCILLARY/INCIDENT OF JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION AL JURISDICTION (CONTINUITY OF
JURISDICTION)
The doctrine of primary It states that recourse through The POWER of GR: Jurisdiction, ONCE
jurisdiction holds that IF a court action cannot prosper
CASE is such that ITS until after all such
every court TO ATTACHED, CANNOT
DETERMINATION REQUIRES administrative remedies have ADOPT SUCH BE OUSTED by subsequent
the EXPERTISE, first been exhausted. The MEANS AND happenings or events
nonobservance of the doctrine PERFORM SUCH although of a character which
SPECIALIZED of exhaustion of administrative would have prevented
TRAINING AND ACTS necessary to jurisdiction from attaching in
remedies RESULTS in lack of carry its jurisdiction
KNOWLEDGE of the cause of action. (National the first instance, and the
into effect. (Riano, COURT RETAINS
proper administrative Electrification Administration v.
2019) JURISDICTION UNTIL IT
bodies, relief must first be Villanueva, G.R. No. 168203,
obtained in an March 9, 2010) FINALLY DISPOSES OF THE
A grant of jurisdiction, CASE. (Aruego, Jr., v. CA, G.R.
administrative proceeding
in the absence of No. 112193, March 13, 1996)
before a remedy is supplied NOTE: The rule on exhaustion
prohibitive legislation,
by the courts even if the of administrative remedies and
implies the necessary XPNs:
matter may well be within doctrine of primary jurisdiction
and usual INCIDENTAL
their proper jurisdiction.
APPLIES ONLY when the POWERS essential to 1. Where a SUBSEQUENT
The objective is to guide a administrative agency effectuate it, and, STATUTE EXPRESSLY
subject to existing
court in determining EXERCISES QUASI-JUDICIAL OR
FUNCTION. laws and PROHIBITS the continued
whether it should refrain ADJUDICATORY exercise of jurisdiction;
constitutional
from exercising its (Associate Communications and
provisions, every
jurisdiction until after an Wireless Services v. Dumalao, 2. Where the law penalizing
regularly constituted
administrative agency has G.R. No. 136762, November21,
court has power to do an act which is punishable is
determined some question 2002)
all things that are REPEALED by a subsequent
or some aspect of some
reasonably necessary law;
question arising in the RATIONALE: The thrust of
for the administration
proceeding before the the rule is that courts must 3. When accused is
of justice within the
court. (Province of Aklan v. allow administrative agencies to
scope of its DEPRIVED OF HIS
Jody King Construction and carry out their functions and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
jurisdiction and for
Development, G.R. Nos. discharge their responsibilities
the enforcement of its such as where the court fails
197592 & 20262, November within the SPECIALIZED AREAS
judgments and to provide counsel for the
27, 2013, citing Fabia v. CA, OF THEIR RESPECTIVE mandates. (Republic accused who is unable to
437 Phil. 389) COMPETENCE. (Caballes v. v. Felix, G.R. No. obtain one and does not
Perez-Sison, G.R. No. 131759, 203371, June 30, intelligently waive his
March 23, 2004) 2020, citing Mendez v. constitutional right
Shari’a District Court
It entails lesser expenses and et al., G.R. No.201614, NOTE: Where there is a
provides for the speedier January 12, 2016) violation of basic
resolution of controversies. consitutional rights, courts
Comity and convenience also Hence, demands, are ousted from their
impel courts of justice to shy matters or questions jurisdiction. THE VIOLATION
away from a dispute until the ANCILLARY OR OF A PARTY’S DUE PROCESS
system of administrative INCIDENTAL TO, OR RAISES A SERIOUS
redress has been completed. GROWING OUT of the JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE
(Universal Robina Corporation main action, and WHICH CANNOT BE GLOSSED
v. Laguna Lake Authority, G.R. coming within the OVER OR DISREGARDED AT
No. 191427, May 30, 2011) above principles, WILL. Where the denial of the
MAY BE TAKEN fundamental right is
COGNIZANCE OF BY apparent, a decision
THE COURt and rendered in disregard of that
determined, since right is void for lack of
such jurisdiction is in jurisdiction. (Apo Cement
aid of its authority Corporation v. Mingson
over the principal Industries Corporation, G.R.
matter, even though No. 206728, November 12,
the court may thus be 2014)
called on to consider
EXCEPTIONS and decide matters
XPNs: which, as original 4. Where the statute
1. When respondent official causes of action, expressly provides, or is
1. Where there is acted in UTTER DISREGARD OF would not be within construed to the effect that it
ESTOPPEL in the part of DUE PROCESS; its cognizance. (Ibid.) is intended to operate as to
the party invoking the actions pending before its
doctrine; enactment;
2. When the questions involved
2. Where the challenged are PURELY JUDICIAL OR 5. When the proceedings in
ADMINISTRATIVE ACT IS LEGAL; the court acquiring
PATENTLY ILLEGAL, jurisdiction is terminated,
amounting to lack of abandoned or declared void;
jurisdiction;
3. When the controverted act is 6. Once APPEAL has been
3. Where there is PATENTLY ILLEGAL or was PERFECTED; and
UNREASONABLE DELAY OR performed without jurisdiction
OFFICIAL INACTION that will or in excess of jurisdiction; 7. CURATIVE STATUTES
irretrievably prejudice the (Herrera, 2007) NOTE: The
complainant; rule of adherence of
4. When there is ESTOPPEL on jurisdiction until a cause is
4. Where the AMOUNT the part of the administrative finally resolved or
involved is relatively agency concerned; adjudicated does not apply
SMALL; when the change in
5. When its application may jurisdiction is curative in
5. Where the question cause GREAT AND character. (Abad,et al. v. RTC,
involved is PURELY IRREPARABLE DAMAGE; G.R. No. L-65505, October 12,
LEGAL and will ultimately 1987)
6. When the respondent is a
have to be decided by the Department Secretary, whose
courts; acts as an alter ego of the
Effect of retroactivity
President BEARS THE IMPLIED of laws on jurisdiction
6. Where judicial OR ASSUMED APPROVAL of the
intervention is URGENT; latter unless actually Jurisdiction being a matter of
disapproved by him; substantive law, the
7. When its application may established rule is that THE
cause GREAT AND 7. When to require
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE; STATUTE IN FORCE at
administrative remedies would the time of the
be UNREASONABLE; commencement of the
8. Where the controverted
acts VIOLATE DUE action DETERMINES
8. When the insistence in its JURISDICTION. (Herrera,
PROCESS;
observance would RESULT IN 2007)
THE NULLIFICATION of the
9. When the issue of non-
claim being asserted; As a consequence,
exhaution of administrative
remedies has been jurisdiction is not affected by
9. When the subject matter is a a new law placing a
rendered MOOT;
PRIVATE LAND in land case proceeding under the
proceedings; jurisdiction of another
10. When there is NO
OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY, tribunal.
10. When it does NOT PROVIDE
ADEQUATE REMEDY; and
A PLAIN, SPEEDY AND XPNs:
ADEQUATE REMEDY; 1. Where there is an
11. In QUO EXPRESS PROVISION In the
WARRANTO 11. Where there are statute
proceedings. (Ibid) circumstances indicating the
URGENCY OF JUDICIAL 2. The statute is CLEARLY
NOTE: The doctrine of INTERVENTION (Paat v. CA, G.R. INTENDED TO APPLY TO
primary jurisdiction No. 111107, January 10, 1997); ACTIONS PENDING BEFORE
PRECLUDES the courts 12. Exhaustion of administrative ITS ENACTMENT. (PNB v.
from resolving a Tejano, G.R. No. 173615,
remedies may also BE October 16, 2009)
controversy over which
jurisdiction has initially considered WAIVED if there is
been lodged with an a failure to assert it for an
administrative body of unreasonable length of time
special competence. For (Rep. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
instance, in agrarian reform
cases, jurisdiction is vested
in the Department of
Agrarian Reform; more
specifically, in the
Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB). (Spouses Fajardo
v. Flores, G.R. No. 167891,
January 15, 2010)
Nos. 112708-09, March 29,
1996);
13. A CIVIL ACTION FOR
DAMAGES may, however,
proceed notwithstanding the
pendency of an administrative
action (Escuerte v. CA, G.R. No.
L53485, February 6, 1991);
14. When the claim involved is
SMALL;
15. When STRONG PUBLIC
INTEREST is involved; and
16. In QUO WARRANTO
proceedings (Castro v. Gloria,
G.R. No. 132174, August 20,
2001)
Effect of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies The
ground should not be lack of
jurisdiction BUT LACK OF
CAUSE OF ACTION as it
renders the action premature.
(Carale v. Abarintos, G.R. No.
120704, March 3, 1997;
Pestanas v. Dyogi, 81 SCRA 574)