JUDICIAL REVIEW
Mollaneda v. Umacob (June 6, 2001)
 The term judicial review may embrace any
form of judicial scrutiny of a matter which
arises when such action is brought into
question before a court.
 It is ordinarily available only for final
administrative action.
 Its underlying purpose is to assure – on
the petition of interested parties – by the
intervention of ordinary courts that
administrative power is exercised
according to law and that agencies do not
go beyond their statutory or
constitutional powers in carrying out their
tasks.
 It is the policy of the courts not to
interfere; Exception.
 Questions of law versus questions of fact.
Unicraft Industries International v. CA
(March 23, 2001)
HELD: While under the law decisions of
voluntary arbitrators are accorded finality, the
same may still be subject to review, such as
here where there was a violation of
petitioner’s right to due process and to be
heard.
Indeed, this omission to afford petitioners a
chance to present evidence on their behalf is
a clear violation of a partys’ constitutional
right and has the effect of rendering its
judgment null and void. It is a cardinal rule in
law that a decision or judgment is fatally
defective if rendered in violation of a party-
litigants right to due process.
Arboleda v. NLRC (Feb. 11, 1999)
HELD: The principle that factual findings of
administrative bodies are binding upon this
Court may be sustained only when no issue of
credibility is raised. But when the findings of
fact of the NLRC do not agree with those of
the Labor Arbiter, this Court must of necessity
review the records to determine which
findings should be preferred as more
conformable to the evidentiary facts.
FACTS: CSCRO found petitioner guilty of grave
misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to
the best interest of the service for sexually
harassing the respondent. Petitioner contends
that the failure of the CSC Commissioners to
"personally observe the demeanor, conduct
and attitude of the witnesses" and their
reliance solely on Atty. Buena’s
recommendation and notes should have
discouraged the CA from giving weight to the
findings of the Commission.
For her part, respondent reiterates the ruling
of the CA that in reviewing administrative
cases, the appellate court is traditionally
sanctioned to subscribe to the findings of the
lower court or administrative body or agency
since it is in a better position to determine the
credibility of witnesses.
Mollaneda
HELD: In laying down the precedent that the
matter of assigning values to the testimony of
witnesses is best performed by trial courts or
administrative bodies rather than by appellate
courts, this Court merely recognizes that the
trial court or the administrative body as a trier
of facts is in a better position to assess the
demeanor of the witnesses and the credibility
of their testimonies as they were within its
proximal view during the hearing or
investigation. At any rate, it cannot be
gainsaid that the term "administrative body or
agency" includes the subordinate officials
upon whose hand the body or agency
delegates a portion of its authority. Included
therein are the hearing officers through
whose eyes and ears the administrative body
or agency observes the demeanor, conduct
and attitude of the witnesses and listens to
their testimonies.
It must be emphasized that the appointment
of competent officers to hear and receive
evidence is commonly resorted to by
administrative bodies or agencies in the
interest of an orderly and efficient disposition
of administrative cases.
Ombudsman v. Reyes (Oct. 5, 2011)
HELD: In reviewing administrative decisions, it
is beyond the province of this Court to weigh
the conflicting evidence, determine the
credibility of witnesses, or otherwise
substitute its judgment for that of the
administrative agency with respect to the
sufficiency of evidence. However, while it is
not the function of the Court to analyze and
weigh the parties' evidence all over again, an
exception thereto lies as when there is serious
ground to believe that a possible miscarriage
of justice would thereby result.
After carefully perusing the records of this
case, we find that the above-cited exception,
rather than the general rule, applies herein.
Otherwise stated, the Court deems it proper
that a review of the case should be made in
order to arrive at a just resolution.
Ombudsman
Due process in administrative proceedings
requires compliance with the following
cardinal principles: xxx the decision must be
rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record
and disclosed to the parties affected; xxx
In the present case, the fifth requirement
stated above was not complied with. Reyes
was not properly apprised of the evidence
offered against him, which were eventually
made the bases of petitioner’s decision that
found him guilty of grave misconduct.
Ombudsman
The fact that Reyes was able to assail the
adverse decision of the petitioner via a
Motion for Reconsideration Cum Motion to
Set the Case for Preliminary Conference did
not cure the violation of his right to due
process in this case. Reyes filed the said
motion precisely to raise the issue of the
violation of his right to due process. There is
nothing on record to show that Reyes was
furnished with, or had otherwise received, a
copy of the affidavits of Peñaloza, Amper and
Valdehueza, whether before or after the
Decision dated September 24, 2001 was
issued. Thus, it cannot be said that Reyes had
a fair opportunity to squarely and intelligently
answer the accusations therein or to offer any
rebuttal evidence thereto.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE
 In reviewing administrative decisions,
the reviewing court cannot examine
or weigh once more the factual basis
and sufficiency of the evidence
submitted before the administrative
body and substitute its own judgment
for that of said body or to receive
additional evidence that was not
submitted to the administrative
agency concerned.
 Substantial evidence means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
Right to judicial review or appeal
- Legal basis
- The right to appeal is not a
constitutional right nor is it embraced
in the right to be heard as guaranteed
by due process.
- The fact, however, that a statute does
not provide for judicial relief or
review does not mean that there is no
power or right of relief or review in a
proper case under the general powers
and jurisdictions of the courts.
How appeal is made:
 This applies to agencies such as CSC,
SEC, Land Registration Authority, SSC,
OP, CAB, NTC, DAR, GSIS, ECC, etc.
 Where to appeal–CourtofAppeals
 Period of appeal – 15 days from
notice of the award, judgment, order
or resolution, or of the denial of the
MR. Only one MR is allowed.
  How appeal is taken – by filing a
verified petition for review and
payment of docket fees.
DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION
Courts are reluctant to interfere with action of
an administrative agency prior to its
completion or finality, the reason being that
absent a final order or decision, power has
not been fully exercised, and there can usually
be no irreparable harm.
It is only after judicial review is no longer
premature that a court may ascertain in
proper cases whether the administrative
action or findings are not in violation of law,
or are free from fraud or imposition or find
substantial support from the evidence.
Only after the facts shall have been properly
determined and a decision has been
rendered, may the appropriate judicial power
be availed of by the party who feels aggrieved
thereby.
Exceptions to Doctrine of Finality:
Judicial review shall be applicable even where
there is not a “final order”:
a) To an interlocutory order affecting the
merits of controversy;
b) To grant relief to preserve the status
quo pending further action by the
administrative agency;
c) When it is essential to the protection
of the rights asserted from the injury
threatened;
d) Where an administrative officer
assumes to act in violation of the
Constitution and other laws;
e) Where such order is not reviewable in
any other way and the complainant
will suffer great and obvious damage
if the order is carried out; and
f) To an order made in excess of power,
contrary to specific prohibition in the
statute governing the agency and thus
operating as a deprivation of a right
assured by the statute.
Mendiola v. CSC (April 7, 1993)
HELD: The Civil Service Commission has no
power or authority to reconsider its decision
which has no power or authority to reconsider
its decision which has become final and
executory even if the Commission later
discovers that its decision is erroneous. The
doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded
on fundamental considerations of public
policy and sound practice. Thus, once a
decision becomes final and executory, it is
removed from the power and jurisdiction of
the court which rendered it to further alter or
amend it, much less revoke it.
This doctrine of finality of judgment is
grounded on fundamental considerations of
public policy and sound practice that at the
risk of occasional error, the judgments of the
courts must become final at some definite
date fixed by law. To allow courts to amend
final judgments will result in endless litigation.
This doctrine applies equally to quasi-judicial
agencies.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
 This is also known as doctrine of prior
resort, exclusive administrative
jurisdiction, or preliminary resort.
 Under the Doctrine of Primary
Jurisdiction, courts cannot or will not
determine a controversy involving a
question which is within the
jurisdiction of the administrative
tribunal prior to the resolution of that
question by the administrative
tribunal, where the question demands
the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience and services
of the administrative tribunal to
 determine technical and intricate
matters of fact.
 The doctrine applies only where the
administrative agency exercises its
quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function.
- Suspension of trial.
- The application of the doctrine does
not call for the dismissal of the case
- The application of the Doctrine
cannot be waived.
Reasons for application of the doctrine:
(1) To take full advantage of
administrative expertness; and
(2) To attain uniformity of application of
regulatory laws.
Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA (April
18,1990)
ISSUE: Which body exercises primary
jurisdiction over the case: the RTC or the
Bureau of Energy Development?
HELD: The BED. Clearly, the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction finds application in this
case since the question of what coal areas
should be exploited and developed and which
entity should be granted coal operating
contracts over said areas involves technical
determination by the BED as the
administrative agency in possession of the
specialized expertise to act on the matter.
The trial court does not have the competence
to decide matters concerning activities
relative to the exploration, exploitation,
development and extraction of mineral
resources like coal. These issues preclude an
initial judicial determination.
Republic v. Gallo (Jan. 17, 2018)
HELD: Where a party participated in the
proceedings and the issue of non-compliance
was raised only as an afterthought at the final
stage of appeal, the party invoking it may be
estopped from doing so.
UST v. Sanchez (July 29, 2010)
HELD: The rule on primary jurisdiction applies
only where the administrative agency
exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory
functions. Thus, an essential requisite for this
doctrine to apply is the actual existence of
quasi-judicial power. However, petitioners
have not shown that the CHED possesses any
such power to "investigate facts or ascertain
the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh
evidence, and draw conclusions.
Cristobal v. CA (June 22, 1998)
HELD: Questions relative to compliance with
the requirements for the conversion of
subdivision lots are properly cognizable by the
HLURB, not by the regular courts. Thus, no
resort to the court may be made before the
administrative body shall have acted upon the
matter.
Paat v. CA (Jan. 10, 1997)
HELD: The enforcement of forestry laws, rules
and regulations fall within the primary and
special responsibilities of the DENR; thus the
assumption by the RTC of jurisdiction over the
suit filed by respondents constitutes an
encroachment into administrative agency the
domain of the admin agency
Crusaders Broadcasting System v. NTC (May
31, 2000)
HELD: In the matter of issuing licenses to
operate radio stations, the NTC is in a better
position than the courts to determine to
whom the privilege should be granted in
order that public interest may be served. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction prevents the
court from arrogating unto itself the authority
to resolve a controversy which falls under the
jurisdiction of a tribunal possessed with
special competence.
Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and
Technology (Nov. 18, 2004)
HELD: The CHED does not have the power to
award damages, and thus, the petitioner
could not have commenced her case before
the CHED.
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, 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.
Application
 The classic example of failure to
exhaust administrative remedies is
the failure to appeal from an
administrative decision to a higher
administrative authority or tribunal
within the administrative system.
 Only judicial review of decisions of
administrative bodies made in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial
function (adjudicative, not rule-
making or legislative power) is subject
to the exhaustion doctrine.
Exceptions:
a) where there is estoppel on the part of
the party invoking the doctrine;
b) where the challenged administrative
act is patently illegal, amounting to
lack of jurisdiction;
c) where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complainant;
d) where the amount involved is
relatively small so as to make the rule
impractical and oppressive;
e) where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts of justice;
f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
g) when its application may cause great
and irreparable damage;
h) where the controverted acts violate
due process;
i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been
rendered moot;
j) when there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy;
k) when strong public interest is
involved; and,
l) in quo warranto proceedings.
Garcia v. CA (June 6, 2001)
HELD: The records would show that petitioner
filed the petition for certiorari, mandamus
and prohibition with the trial court even while
the administrative investigation was yet
ongoing. Petitioner's immediate recourse to
the trial court was premature and precipitate.
From the decision of the PCA Board, once
rendered, an administrative remedy of appeal
to the Civil Service Commission would still be
available to him.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, recourse through
court action, cannot prosper until after all
such administrative remedies would have first
been exhausted. The doctrine does not
warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the
authority to resolve, or interfere in, a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is
lodged initially with an administrative body,
like the PCA Board and its Investigation
Committee, of special competence. 9 The rule
is an element of petitioner's right of action,
and it is too significant a mandate to be just
waylaid by the courts.
National Development Company v. Hervilla
(June 30, 1987)
Held: Records do not show that private
respondent ever filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the Director
of Lands issuing free patent over the lands in
dispute in favor of petitioners' predecessor-
in-interest. Neither did he appeal said
decision to the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, nor did he appeal to the
office of the President of the Philippines. In
short, Hervilla failed to exhaust administrative
remedies, a flaw which, to our mind, is fatal to
a court review. The decision of the Director of
Lands has now become final. The Courts may
no longer interfere with such decision.
Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas (July 10,
2003)
HELD: It is worth mentioning that the decision
of the Regional Director may still be elevated
to the Office of the Secretary of the DENR to
fully comply with the process of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. And well settled is
the rule in our jurisdiction that before
bringing an action in or resorting to the Courts
of Justice, all remedies of administrative
character affecting or determinative of the
controversy at that level should first be
exhausted by the aggrieved party. And
petitioners’ failure to exhaust administrative
remedies renders his [sic] petition dismissible.
And a dismissal on the ground of failure to
exhaust administrative remedies is
tantamount to a dismissal based on lack of
cause of action although it does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the subject
matter.
Maglalang v. PAGCOR (Dec. 11, 2013)
HELD: Under the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, before a party is
allowed to seek the intervention of the court,
he or she should have availed himself or
herself of all the means of administrative
processes afforded him or her. Hence, if
resort to a remedy within the administrative
machinery can still be made by giving the
administrative officer concerned every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes
within his or her jurisdiction, then such
remedy should be exhausted first before the
court's judicial power can be sought.
The premature invocation of the intervention
of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is based on practical and legal
reasons. The availment of administrative
remedy entails lesser expenses and provides
for a speedier disposition of controversies.
Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons
of comity and convenience, will shy away
from a dispute until the system of
administrative redress has been completed
and complied with, so as to give the
administrative agency concerned every
opportunity to correct its error and dispose of
the case.
Maglalang
HELD: However, the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is not absolute as it
admits of the following exceptions:
(1) when there is a violation of due process;
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal
question; (3) when the administrative action is
patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; (4) when there is estoppel on the
part of the administrative agency concerned;
(5) when there is irreparable injury; (6) when
the respondent is a department secretary
whose acts as an alter ego of the President
bears the implied and assumed approval of
the latter; (7) when to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be
unreasonable; (8) when it would amount to a
nullification of a claim; (9) when the subject
matter is a private land in land case
proceedings; (10) when the rule does not
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy,
and (11) when there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention,
and unreasonable delay would greatly
prejudice the complainant; (12) where no
administrative review is provided by law; (13)
where the rule of qualified political agency
applies and (14) where the issue of non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies has
been rendered moot.
Maglalang
HELD: The case before us falls squarely under
exception number 12 since the law per se
provides no administrative review for
administrative cases whereby an employee
like petitioner is covered by Civil Service law,
rules and regulations and penalized with a
suspension for not more than 30 days.
Since the decision of the Ombudsman
suspending respondents for one (1) month is
final and unappealable, it follows that the CA
had no appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify
or reverse the same.
In sum, there being no appeal or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law in view of petitioner's allegation
that PAGCOR has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
the CA's outright dismissal of the petition for
certiorari on the basis of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies is bereft of any legal
standing and should therefore be set aside.
National Irrigation Administration v. Enciso
(May 5, 2006)
HELD: For the supposed refusal or failure by
the concerned public officials to act over
respondent’s money claim or even the mere
inaction for an unreasonable period, the
proper and immediate remedy of the
respondent was to file his claim with the COA,
such inaction or refusal to pay being
tantamount to disallowance of the claim. Only
after COA has ruled on the claim, may the
injured party invoke judicial intervention by
bringing the matter to this Court on petition
for certiorari.
Assoc. of Phil. Coconut Desiccators v. PCA
(Feb. 10, 1998)
HELD: The rule of requiring exhaustion of
administrative remedies before a party may
seek judicial revie has obviously no
application here. The resolution in question
was issued by the PCA in the exercise of its
rule-making or legislative power. However,
only judicial review of decisions of
administrative agencies made in the exercise
of their quasi-judicial function is subject to the
exhaustion doctrine.
Smart v. NTC (August 12, 2003)
Held: In questioning the validity or
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued
by an administrative agency, a party need not
exhaust administrative remedies before going
to court. This principle applies only where the
act of the administrative agency concerned
was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial
function, and not when the assailed act
pertained to its rule-making or quasi-
legislative power.
Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino III (April 2,
2019)
HELD: The policy of judicial bodies to give
quasi-judicial agencies, such as the SSC, an
opportunity to correct its mistakes by way of
motions for reconsideration or other statutory
remedies before accepting appeals therefrom
finds extensive doctrinal support in the well-
entrenched principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
The reason for the principle rests upon the
presumption that the administrative body, if
given the chance to correct its mistake or
error, may amend its decision on a given
matter and decide it properly. The principle
insures orderly procedure and withholds
judicial interference until the administrative
process would have been allowed to duly run
its course. This is but practical since availing of
administrative remedies entails lesser
expenses and provides for a speedier
disposition of controversies. Even comity
dictates that unless the available
administrative remedies have been resorted
to and appropriate authorities given an
opportunity to act and correct the errors
committed in the administrative forum,
judicial recourse must be held to be
inappropriate, impermissible, premature, and
even unnecessary