Admin Law.docx

CHAPTER 3: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW I. General Principles It is a branch of public law fixing the organization and determines the competence of administrative authorities, and indicates the individual remedies for the violation of the rights. [Administrative Code, Sec. 2(3)] Scope: 1. Fixes the administrative operation and structure of the government 2. Executes or enforces that which is entrusted to administrative authorities (all those public officers and organs of the government charged with the amplification, application and execution of the law) 3. Governs public officers and creates administrative officers 4. Provides remedies to those aggrieved by these agencies 5. Governs Judicial Review 6. Includes rules, regulation, orders and decisions made by administrative authorities 7. Includes the body of judicial doctrines on any of the above Kinds: 1. Statutes setting up administrative authorities. 2. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities. 3. Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative authorities in pursuance of the purposes, for which administrative authorities were created or endowed. Example: Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, circulars of Central Monetary Authority 4. Determinations, decisions, and orders of such administrative authorities in the settlement of controversies arising in their particular field. Example: Awards of NLRC with respect to money claims of employees II. Administrative Agencies Definition: It is an organ of government, other than a court and the legislature, which affects the rights of private parties either through adjudication or rule making. Interpretation of the powers of the administrative agencies Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may be administrative, investigatory, regulatory, quasi-legislative, or quasi-judicial or mix of the five, as may be conferred by the constitution or by the statute. They have in fine only such powers or authority as are granted or delegated, expressly or impliedly, by law. And in determining whether an agency has certain powers, the inquiry should be from the law itself. But once ascertained as existing, the authority given should be

liberally construed. (Soriano v. MTRCB, G.R. No. 165785, April 29, 2009) Instrumentality It refers “to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. It includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations.” (United Residents of Dominican Hills v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001) Agency Any of the various units of the government, including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporations, or a local government or a distinct unit therein. (Administrative Code, Sec. 2) Department An executive department created by law. [Administrative Code of 1987, Sec. 2(7)] Bureau Any principal subdivision or unit of any department. [Administrative Code, Sec. 2(8)] Office It refers to any major functional unit of a department or bureau including regional offices. It may also refer to any position held or occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by law or regulation [Administrative Code, Sec. 2(9)]. a. Manner of Creation Creation and Abolition of Office The creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function (Eugenio v. CSC, G.R. No. 15863, March 31, 1995). However, the President may abolish an office either from a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws. (Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010) Manner of creation 1. Constitutional provision 2. Authority of law 3. Legislative enactment Reasons for the creation of administrative agencies 1. Help unclog court dockets 2. Meet the growing complexities of modern society

1

3. Help in the regulation of ramified activities of a developing country Elements of a valid abolition of office 1. In good faith; (good faith is presumed) 2. Not for political or personal reasons; and 3. Not in violation of law. NOTE: The Congress has the right to abolish an office even during the term for which an existing incumbent may have been elected EXCEPT when restrained by the Constitution.

with public interest. Example: Insurance Commission, LTFRB, NTC 5. Those set up to function in situations where the government seeks under the police power to regulate private businesses and individuals. Example: SEC, MTRCB 6. Those agencies set up to function in situations where the government seeks to adjust individual controversies because of strong social policy involved. Example: NLRC, ECC, SEC III.Powers of Administrative Agencies/Bodies

Reorganization Reorganization involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. It alters the existing structure of government offices or the units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility between them to make the bureaucracy more responsive to the needs of the public clientele as authorized by law. (Pan v. Pena G.R. No. 174244, Feb. 13, 2009) Circumstances that may be considered as evidence of bad faith in a removal pursuant to reorganization, thus warranting reinstatement or reappointment 1. Where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned; 2. Where an office is abolished and other performing substantially the same functions is created; 3. Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit; 4. Where there is reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the classified offices perform substantially the same function as the original offices; 5. Where the removal violates the order of separation provided in Sec. 3 of R.A. 6656 (Cotiangco v. Province of Biliran, G.R. No. 157139, Oct. 19, 2011) b. Kinds Kinds of administrative bodies or agencies according to their purpose 1. Those created to function in situations where the government offers gratuity, grant, or special privilege. Example: GSIS, SSS, PAO 2. Those set up to function in situations where the government seeks to carry on certain functions of government. Example: BIR, BOC, BOI 3. Those set up in situations where the government performs business service for the public. Example: PNR, MWSS, NFA, NHA 4. Those set up to function in situations where the government seeks to regulate businesses imbued

Administrative power or function Involves the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence. (In re: Rodolfo U. Manzano, A.M. No. 88-71861- RTC, October 5, 1988) Powers of administrative agencies 1. Discretionary – the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how orwhen the duty shall be performed. 2. Ministerial – one which is as clear and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its performance. Basic powers of administrative agencies 1. Quasi-legislative power or rule-making power 2. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power 3. Determinative power Case: Alliance for the Family Foundation vs. Garin [2017] Doctrine: The powers of an administrative body are classified into two fundamental powers: quasilegislative and quasi-judicial. Quasi-legislative power, otherwise known as the power of subordinate legislation, has been defined as the authority delegated by the lawmaking body to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of law and implement legislative policy. "[A] legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof." The exercise by the administrative body of its quasi-legislative power through the promulgation of regulations of general application does not, as a rule, require notice and hearing. The only exception being where the Legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate investigation. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Quasi-judicial power, on the other hand, is known as the power of the administrative agency to determine

2

questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself. As it involves the exercise of discretion in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties, the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power requires the concurrence of two elements: one, jurisdiction which must be acquired by the administrative body and two, the observance of the requirements of due process, that is, the right to notice and hearing. a. Quasi-legislative (rule-making) power The exercise of delegated legislative power, involving no discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself.

(1) the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; (2) that the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conforms to the standards that the law prescribes (People of the Philippines v. Exconde, G.R. No. L-9820, August 30, 1957) i.

Notice and hearing required?

GR: An administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing, in the performance of its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and regulations. (Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 111963, December 12, 1997)

Limitations to the exercise of quasi-legislative power 1. Within the limits of the powers granted to administrative agencies. 2. Cannot make rules or regulations which are inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution or statute. 3. Cannot defeat the purpose of the statute. 4. May not amend, alter, modify, supplant, enlarge, or limit the terms of the statute. 5. A rule or regulation must be uniform in operation, reasonable and not unfair or discriminatory.

Exceptions: The legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate investigation. (Hon. Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 164171, August 22, 2006)

Administrative rule Any agency statement of general applicability, which implements or interprets a law fixes and describes procedures in, or practice requirements of, an agency, including its regulations. The term includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration or management of an agency not affecting the rights of, or procedure available to the public. [Administrative Code of 1987, Sec. 2 (2)]

Publication requirement Required as a condition precedent to the effectivity of a law to inform the public of the contents of the law or rules and regulations before their rights and interests are affected by the same. ( Philippine International Trading Corporation v. COA, G.R. No. 132593, June 25, 1999)

Source of the power to promulgate administrative rules and regulations Derived from the legislature, by virtue of a valid delegation, either express or implied. Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation Power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations on matters within their own specialization. Reason behind the delegation It is well established in this jurisdiction that, while the making of laws is a non-delegable activity that corresponds exclusively to Congress, nevertheless the latter may constitutionally delegate authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason that the legislature often finds it impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. All that is required is that:

The administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden of those governed. (CIR v. CA, G.R. No. 11976, August 26, 1996)

NOTE: If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. [1987 Administrative Code, Administrative Procedure, Sec. 9(1)] Requisites for a valid delegation of quasilegislative or rule-making power 1. Completeness Test - The statute is complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed by the agency

2. Sufficient Standard Test - Statute fixes a standard, mapping out the boundaries of the agency’s authority to which it must conform It lays down a sufficient standard when it rovides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegate’s authority, announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be

3

implemented. (ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008) b. Quasi-judicial power (Determinative powers) Power of administrative authorities to make determinations of facts in the performance of their official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts so found. It partakes the nature of judicial power, but exercised by a person other than a judge. Limited jurisdiction of quasi-judicial agencies An administrative body could wield only such powers as are specifically granted to it by its enabling statute. Its jurisdiction is interpreted strictissimi juris. Conditions for the Proper Exercise of QuasiJudicial Power 1. Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body; 2. Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings. Classifications of Adjudicatory Powers 1. Dispensing powers – Exemplified by the authority to exempt from or relax a general prohibition, or authority to relieve from an affirmative duty. Its difference from licensing power is that dispensing power sanctions a deviation from a standard 2. Enabling powers – Permits the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate and which would be unlawful without governmental orders. It is characterized by the grant or denial of permit or authorization. Example: Issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business. 3. Directing powers – – Orders the doing or performing of particular acts to ensure the compliance with the law and are often exercised for corrective purposes. Examples: public utility commissions, powers of assessment under the revenue laws, reparations under public utility laws, and awards under workmen’s compensation laws, and powers of abstract determination such as definition-valuation, classification and fact finding 4. Summary powers –Apply compulsion or force against person or property to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such action. Examples: Abatement of nuisance, summary restraint, levy of property of delinquent taxpayers 5. Equitable powers –The power to determine the law upon a particular state of facts that has the right to, and must, consider and make proper application of the rules of equity. Examples: Power to appoint a receiver, power to issue injunctions 6. Examining powers– This is also called as investigatory power. Requires production of books, papers, etc., and the attendance of witnesses and compelling the testimony.

Cardinal Requirements of Due Process in Administrative Proceedings (HEDS-RIK) 1. Right to a hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof. 2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. 3. The decision must be supported by evidence. 4. Such evidence must be substantial. 5. 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. 6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy in arriving at a decision. 7. The board or body should render decision in such a manner that parties can know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered. (Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940). NOTE: The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. What is offensive to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. (Flores v. Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146, June 6, 2011) Notice and Hearing, Effect of Non-observance – As a rule, it will invalidate the administrative proceedings. A failure to comply with the requirements may result in a failure to acquire jurisdiction.

NOTE: Right to notice may be waived. Necessity of Notice and Hearing A hearing may take place after the deprivation occurs. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard.

NOTE: There has been no denial of due process if any irregularity in the premature issuance of the assailed decision has been remedied by an order giving the petitions the right to participate in the hearing of the MR. The opportunity granted by, technically, allowing petitioners to finally be able to file their comment in the case, resolves the procedural irregularity previously inflicted upon petitioners. (Nasecore v. ERC, G.R. No. 190795, July 6, 2011) Exceptions to the Requirement of Notice and Hearing 1. Urgency of immediate action 2. Tentativeness of administrative action 3. Grant or revocation of licenses or permits to operate certain businesses affecting public order or morals

4

4. Summary abatement of nuisance per se which affects safety of persons or property 5. Preventive suspension of public officer or employee facing administrative charges 6. Cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution 7. Summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon property of a delinquent taxpayer 8. Replacement of a temporary or acting appointee 9. Right was previously offered but not claimed c. Fact-finding, investigative, licensing and ratefixing powers Fact-finding Power a) Power to declare the existence of facts which call into operation the provisions of a statute; b) Power to ascertain and determine appropriate facts as a basis for procedure in the enforcement of particular laws NOTE: The mere fact that an officer is required by law to inquire the existence of certain facts and to apply the law thereto in order to determine what his official conduct shall be does not affect private rights do not constitute an exercise of judicial powers. (Lovina v. Moreno, G.R. No. L-17821, November 21, 1963) Exceptions to the Rule that Findings of Facts of Administrative Agencies are Binding on the Courts 1. Findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition, or collusion 2. Procedure which led to factual findings is irregular 3. Palpable errors are committed 4. Factual findings not supported by evidence 5. Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness is manifest 6. When expressly allowed by statute 7. Error in appreciation of the pleadings and in the interpretation of the documentary evidence presented by the parties Fact-finding Quasi-judicial Body A fact-finding quasi-judicial body (e.g., Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board) whose decisions (on questions regarding certificate of public convenience) are influenced not only by the facts as disclosed by the evidence in the case before it but also by the reports of its field agents and inspectors that are periodically submitted to it, has the power to take into consideration the result of its own observation and investigation of the matter submitted to it for decision, in connection with other evidence presented at the hearing of the case. (Pantranco South Express, Inc. v Board of Transportation, G.R. No. L-49664, November 22, 1990)

Power to inspect, secure, or require the disclosure of information by means of accounts, records, reports, statements and testimony of witnesses. It is implied and not inherent in administrative agencies. Power to issue subpoena not inherent in administrative bodies It is settled that these bodies may summon witnesses and require the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate. Power to cite a person in contempt not inherent in administrative bodies It must be expressly conferred upon the body, and additionally, must be used only in connection with its quasi-judicial as distinguished from its purely administrative or routinary functions. NOTE: If there is no express grant, the agency must invoke the aid of the RTC under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Licensing power The action of an administrative agency in granting or denying, or in suspending or revoking, a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of public convenience and necessity. License Includes the whole or any part of any agency’s permit, certificate, passport, clearance, approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission, or regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege. [1987 Administrative Code, Sec. 2(10), Administrative Procedure] Licensing Includes agency process involving the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification or conditioning of a license. [1987 Administrative Code, Sec. 2(11), Administrative Procedure] NOTE: Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and regulations or when public security, health, or safety requires otherwise, no license may be withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without notice and hearing. [1987 Administrative Code, Sec. 17(2), Administrative Procedure] Nature of an administrative agency’s act if it is empowered by a statute to revoke a license for noncompliance or violation of agency regulations Where a statute empowers an agency to revoke a license for non-compliance with or violation of agency regulations, the administrative act is of a judicial nature, since it depends upon the ascertainment of the existence of certain past or present facts upon which a

Investigatory Power

5

decision is to be made and rights and liabilities determined. Rate It means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms, including individual or joint rates, tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as well as communication, mileage, kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law or regulation to be observed and followed by a person. [1987 Administrative Code, Administrative Procedure, Sec. 2(3)] Rate-fixing power Power usually delegated by the legislature to administrative agencies for the latter to fix the rates which public utility companies may charge the public. NOTE: The power to fix rates is essentially legislative but may be delegated. (Philippine Inter-Island v. CA, G.R. No. 100481, Jan. 22, 1997) The legislature may directly provide for these rates, wages, or prices. But while the legislature may deal directly with these subjects, it has been found more advantageous to place the performance of these functions in some administrative agency. The need for dispatch, for flexibility and technical know-how is better met by entrusting the rate-fixing to an agency other than the legislature itself. (Cortes, 1963) Rate-fixing procedure The administrative agencies perform this function either by issuing rules and regulations in the exercise of their quasi-legislative power or by issuing orders affecting a specified person in the exercise of its quasi-judicial power. NOTE: In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon. [1987 Administrative Code, Administrative Procedure, Sec. 9(2)] Requirements for the delegation of the power to ascertain facts to be valid The law delegating the power to determine some facts or state of things upon which the law may take effect or its operation suspended must provide the standard, fix the limits within which the discretion may be exercised, and define the conditions therefor. Absent these requirements, the law and the rules issued thereunder are void, the former being an undue delegation of legislative power and the latter being the exercise of rule-making without legal basis. (U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, G.R. No. L-17122, February 27, 1992) Standard required on delegated power to fix rates That the rate be reasonable and just . (American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, G.R. No. L-26803,

October 14, 1975) In any case, the rates must both be non-confiscatory and must have been established in the manner prescribed by the legislature. Even in the absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied. A ratefixing order, though temporary or provisional it may be, is not exempt from the procedural requirements of notice and hearing when prescribed by statute, as well as the requirement of reasonableness. (Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation v. NTC, G.R. No. 84818, December 18, 1989) Re-delegating power to fix rates is prohibited The power delegated to an administrative agency to fix rates cannot, in the absence of a law authorizing it, be delegated to another. This is expressed in the maxim, potestas delagata non delegari potest. (Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 115381, December 23, 1994) POWER TO FIX RATES EXERCISED AS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION

POWER TO FIX RATE EXERCISED AS A QUASIJUDICIAL FUNCTION

Rules and/or rates laid down are meant to apply to all enterprises

Rules and the rate imposed apply exclusively to a particular party

Prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement, except where the legislature itself requires it.

Prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates. But an administrative agency may be empowered by aw to approve provisionally, when demanded by urgent public need, rates of public utilities without a hearing.

IV. Judicial Recourse and Review Judicial Review Re-examination or determination by the courts in the exercise of their judicial power in an appropriate case instituted by a party aggrieved thereby as to whether the questioned act, rule, or decision has been validly or invalidly issued or whether the same should be nullified, affirmed or modified. NOTE: The mere silence of the law does not necessarily imply that judicial review is unavailable. Requisites of Judicial Review of Administrative

6

Action 1. Principle of finality of administrative action Administrative action must have been completed 2. Principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies Administrative remedies must have been exhausted Limitations on Judicial Review 1. Final and executory decisions cannot be made the subject of judicial review. 2. Administrative acts involving a political question are beyond judicial review, except when there is an allegation that there has been grave abuse of discretion. 3. Courts are generally bound by the findings of fact of an administrative agency. NOTE: Courts will not render a decree in advance of administrative action. Such action would be rendered nugatory. It is not for the court to stop an administrative officer from performing his statutory duty for fear that he will perform it wrongly. a. Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction Under the principle of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving question within the jurisdiction of an administrative body prior to the decision of that question by the administrative tribunal where the: 1. Question demands administrative determination requiring special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal; 2. Question requires determination of technical and intricate issues of a fact; 3. Uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with purposes of the regulatory statute administered NOTE: In such instances, relief must first be obtained in administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. The judicial process is accordingly suspended pending referral of the claim to the administrative agency for its view. Rationale: 1. To take full advantage of administrative expertness 2. To attain uniformity of application of regulatory laws which can be secured only if determination of the issue is left to the administrative body Instances Where the Doctrine Finds No Application 1. By the court's determination, the legislature did not intend that the issues be left solely to the initial determination of the administrative body. 2. The issues involve purely questions of law. 3. Courts and administrative bodies have concurrent jurisdiction.

1. Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine 2. Where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction 3. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant 4. Where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive 5. Where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice 6. Where judicial intervention is urgent 7. When its application may cause great and irreparable damage 8. Where the controverted acts violate due process 9. When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot 10. When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy 11. When strong public interest is involved 12. In quo warranto proceedings (The Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., G.R. Nos. 197592 & 202623, November 27, 2013) b. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies It calls for resorting first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction and must first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest level before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. Premature invocation of court intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite for judicial review; it is a condition precedent which must be complied with. Rationale: 1. To enable the administrative superiors to correct the errors committed by their subordinates. 2. Courts should refrain from disturbing the findings of administrative bodies in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers. 3. Courts should not be saddled with the review of administrative cases. 4. Judicial review of administrative cases is usually effected through special civil actions which are available only if there 5. To avail of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Exceptions to the Application of the Doctrine (1991, 2000, 2004 Bar) 1. Violation of due process

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

7

2. When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned 3. When the issue involved is a purely legal question 4. When there is irreparable injury 5. When the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction 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 the subject matter is a private land case proceedings 8. When it would be unreasonable 9. When no administrative review is provided by law 10. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy 11. When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot 12. When there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention 13. When it would amount to a nullification of a claim; and 14. Where the rule on qualified political agency applies (Laguna CATV Network v. Maraan, G.R. No. 139492, November 19, 2002)

administrative jurisdiction, not the doctrine exhaustion of administrative remedies, applies.

of

Effect of Non-exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case and try it. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 112708-09, March 29, 1996) Case: Department of Finance vs. Hon. Mariano dela Cruz [2015] Doctrine: Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party may seek intervention from the court, he or she should have already exhausted all the remedies in the administrative level. If there is still a remedy available within the administrative machinery, "then such remedy should be exhausted first before [the] court's judicial power can be sought." The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies presupposes that both the courts and the administrative agency have concurrent jurisdiction. This is because non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the court's jurisdiction. xxx xxx xxx Hence, when jurisdiction is exclusively granted to an administrative agency, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply. Here, considering that the Civil Service Commission is granted exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving personnel actions, the doctrine of primary

8