Você está na página 1de 8



MIAA is a NOT a GOCC. It is a government instrumentality
vested w/ corporate powers to perform efficiently its
governmental functions. MIAA is like any other
government instrumentality, the only difference is that
MIAA is vested w/ corporate powers enjoying operational
Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a
stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government
instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also
corporate powers.
Veterans Federation vs. Reyes
Our constitution explicitly prohibits the regulation by special
laws of private corporations, w/ the exception of GOCCs.
The VFP is a public corporation. The fact that no budgetary
appropriations have been released to VFP does not prove
that it is a private corporation.
MMDA vs. Garin
The MMDA is not vested w/ police power. All its functions
are administrative. It has not power to enact ordinances
for the welfare of the community.
Feliciano vs. COA
A local water district (LWD) is a GOCC w/ an original
charter, and is thus, under the COAs audit jurisdiction.
GOCCs w/ original charters are those created under special
laws & NOT under the general incorporation law.
Phil. Telephone Corp. vs. NTC
A franchise to operate a public utility is not an exclusive
private property of the franchisee. Under the Constitution,
no franchise can demand or acquire exclusivity in the
operation of a public utility.
Sec. of DOTC vs. Mabalot
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency: Control includes the
authority to order the doing of an act by a subordinate or
to undo such act or to assume a power directly vested in
him by law. Members of the Cabinet are subject at all
times to the disposition of the President since they are
merely his alter ego.
Metrobank vs. National Wage Productivity Commission
Where the legislature has delegated to executive or
administrative officers & boards authority to promulgate
rules to carry out an express legislative purpose, the
rules of administrative officers & boards, w/c have the
effect of extending or w/c conflict w/ the authoritygranting statute, do not represent a valid exercise of rulemaking power but constitute an attempt by the
administrative body to legislate.
Pharmaceuticals & Health Care Association vs. Duque
An administrative agency like DOH possesses quasilegislative or rule-making power or the power to make
rules & regulations w/c results in delegated legislation
that is w/in the confines of the granting statute and the
Constitution, and subject to the doctrine of nondelegability & separability of powers.
MCC Industrial Sales Corp vs. Sangayang Corp.
The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in
the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to
what is found in the legislative act itself. The
implementing rules & regulations of a law cannot extend
the law of expand its coverage, as the power to amend or
repeal a statute is vested in the Legislature.


If discrepancy occurs between the basic law & an

implementing rule or regulation, it is the former that
prevails, because the law cannot be broadened by a
mere administrative issuance an administrative
agency certainly cannot amend an act of congress.
National Electrification Administration vs. Gonzaga
Administrative rules & regulations must be published if
their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law
pursuant to a valid delegation.
GMA Network vs. MTRCB
According to the administrative Code, 3 copies of every
rule should be filed in the Office of the National
Administrative Register (ONAR) of the UP Law Center.
Failure to comply w/ this makes the administrative
issuance ineffective & may not be enforced.
Equi-Asia Placement vs. DFA
It is now well-settled that delegation of legislative power
to various specialized administrative agencies is allowed
in the face of increasing complexity of modern life.
Given the volume and variety of interactions involving
the members of today's society, it is doubtful if the
legislature can promulgate laws dealing with the
minutiae aspects of everyday life. Hence, the need to
delegate to administrative bodies, as the principal
agencies tasked to execute laws with respect to their
specialized fields, the authority to promulgate rules and
regulations to implement a given statute and effectuate
its policies. All that is required for the valid exercise of
this power of subordinate legislation is that the
regulation must be germane to the objects and
purposes of the law; and that the regulation be not in
contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards
prescribed by the law. Under the first test or the socalled completeness test, the law must be complete in
all its terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the
only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. The second
test or the sufficient standard test, mandates that there
should be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law
to determine the boundaries of the delegate's authority
and prevent the delegation from running riot.
Perez vs. LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines
For an administrative regulation, such as the Circular in
this case, to have the force of penal law
the violation of the administrative regulation
must be made a crime by the delegating
statute itself;
the penalty for such violation must be provided
by the statute itself.
Lhuiller Pawnshop vs. CIR
When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in
nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its
bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more
than what the law itself has already prescribed. When,
on the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond
merely providing for the means that can facilitate or
render least cumbersome the implementation of the law
but substantially increases the burden of those
governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to
those directly affected a chance to be heard, and
thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance
is given the force and effect of law.
Mirasol vs. DPWH
Administrative issuances have the force and effect of law.
They benefit from the same presumption of validity and
constitutionality enjoyed by statutes. These 2 precepts
place a heavy burden upon any party assailing



governmental regulations. The burden of proving

unconstitutionality rests on such party.
Public Schools District Supervisors Assoc. vs. De Jesus
Administrative bodies are allowed under their power of
subordinate legislation to implement the broad policies
laid down in a statute by "filling in" the details. All that is
required is that the regulation be germane to the
objectives and purposes of the law; that the regulation
does not contradict but conforms with the standards
prescribed by law.
This Court accords great respect to the decisions and/or
actions of administrative authorities not only because of
the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their
presumed knowledgeability and expertise in the
enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted to their
jurisdiction. The rationale for this rule relates not only to
the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or
modernizing society and the establishment of diverse
administrative agencies for addressing and satisfying
those needs; it also relates to the accumulation of
experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the
administrative agency charged with implementing a
particular statute.
Veterans Federation vs. Reyes
The validity of Dept. Circular 04 is not affected by its nonpublication since it is merely an internal regulation, while
Sec. 2, 3, and 6 thereof are interpretative in nature. They
do not affect the substantial right of any person.
Beltran vs. Sec. of Health
The true distinction between the power to make laws and
discretion as to its execution is illustrated by the fact that
the delegation of power to make the law, which
necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be,
and conferring an authority or discretion as to its
execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the
law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid
objection can be made.
Abakada vs. Ermita
The principle of non-delegation of powers is based on the
ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes
not only a right but a duty to be performed by the
delegate thru the instrumentality of his own judgment
and not thru the intervening mind of another.
A delegation is valid only if the law:
Is complete in itself, setting forth therein the
policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate, and
Fixes a standard the limits of w/c are
sufficiently determinate & determinable to w/c
the delegate must conform in the performance of
his functions. A sufficient standard is one w/c
defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps
out its boundaries and specifies the public
agency to apply it.
The case before the Court is not a delegation of legislative
power it is simply a delegation of ascertainment of facts
upon w/c enforcement & administration of the increase
rate under the law is contingent. No discretion would be
exercised by the President. The use of the word shall
connote a mandatory order.
Phil. Health Insurance Corp. vs. Chinese General Hospital
This Court will not hesitate, whenever necessary, to allow a
liberal implementation of the rules and regulations of an
administrative agency in cases where their unjustifiably
rigid enforcement will result in a deprivation of legal
rights. In this case, respondent had already rendered the
services for which it was filing its claims. Technicalities
should not be allowed to defeat respondents right to be


reimbursed, specially since petitioners charter itself

guarantees such reimbursement.
Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas vs. CA
The authority of the Sec. of Finance, in conjunction w/ the
CIR to promulgate needful rules & regulations for the
effective enforcement of internal revenue laws cannot
be controverted. Such rules & regulations, as well as
administrative opinions & rulings, ordinarily deserve to
be given weight & respect by the courts.
Home Development Mutual Fund vs. COA
The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in
implementation of the statute is necessarily limited to
what is intended and provided for in the legislative
National Amnesty Commission vs. COA
The COA Memorandum in the case at bar need not be
published because it is merely an internal &
interpretative regulation. It is not an IRR but a directive
issued by COA to its auditors to enforce the prohibition
imposed by Sec. 13, Art. 7 of the Constitution.
Abella vs. CSC
The classification of positions in career service was a
quasi-legislative, not a quasi-judicial, issuance. This
distinction determines whether prior notice and hearing
are necessary.
In exercising its quasi-judicial function, an administrative
body adjudicates the rights of persons before it, in
accordance with the standards laid down by the law.
The determination of facts and the applicable law, as
basis for official action and the exercise of judicial
discretion, are essential for the performance of this
function. On these considerations, it is elementary that
due process requirements, must be observed. These
requirements include prior notice and hearing.
On the other hand, quasi-legislative power is exercised by
administrative agencies through the promulgation of
rules & regulations w/in the confines of the granting
statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of certain
powers flowing from the separation of the great
branches of the government. Prior notice to & hearing of
every affected party, as elements of due process, are
not required since there is no determination of past
events or facts that have to be established or
ascertained. As a general rule, prior notice and hearing
are not essential to the validity of rules or regulations
promulgated to govern future conduct.
Significantly, the challenged Circular was an internal
matter addressed to heads of departments, bureaus and
agencies. It needed no prior publication, since it had
been issued as an incident of the administrative bodys
power to issue guidelines for government officials to
follow in performing their duties.
Valencia vs. CA
The department secretary has the power to promulgate
internal rules of administrative procedure and it is
lodged in him by necessary implication as part of his
express power to promulgate rules & regulations
necessary to carry out department objectives, policies,
functions, plans, programs, and projects.
Leynes vs. COA
An administrative circular cannot repeal a substantive law.
CIR vs. Lhuiller Pawnshop
There are 2 kinds of administrative issuances:
Legislative in the nature of subordinate
legislation, designed to implement a primary
legislation by providing the details thereof



Interpretative designed to provide guidelines

to the law w/c the administrative agency is in
charge of enforcing
Republic vs. Express Telecommunication Company
Publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general
circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes,
rules or regulations can take effect.
Philippine Registered Electrical Practitioners vs. Francia
PD 223 gave the different boards of the PRC the authority
to adopt such measures as may be deemed proper for
the enhancement of the profession or occupation and/or
maintenance of high professional, ethical and technical
standards. The authority of the board is not limited to
the conduct of ocular inspections. The Board in fact may
even do away with ocular inspections, as can be gleaned
from the use of the word "may", implying that the
conduct of ocular inspections is merely directory and not
mandatory. For sure, conducting ocular inspections is only
one way of ensuring compliance with laws and rules
relative to the professional practice of electrical
engineering. But it certainly is not the only way.
Romulo vs. Home Development Mutual Fund
Rules & regulations, w/c are the product of a delegated
power to create new and additional legal provisions that
have the effect of law, should be w/in the scope of the
statutory authority granted by the legislature to the
administrative agency. The agency cannot override,
supplant or modify the law they intend to carry out.
Cruz vs. Flavier
Justice Puno declared as unconstitutional Sec. 1, Part 2,
Rule 2 of the Implementing Rules w/c grants right or
ownership even over natural resources because it went
beyond the parameters of Sec. 7(a) of the IPRA w/c
speaks of right of ownership over land only w/in the
ancestral domain.
SGMC Realty Corporation vs. Office of the President
It is axiomatic that administrative rules derive their validity
from the statute that they are intended to implement.
Any rule which is not consistent with statute itself is null
and void.
Pagpalain Haulers vs. Trajano
For an administrative order to be valid, it must:
be issued on the authority of law, and
it must not be contrary to law & the Constitution
Philippine Bank of Communication vs. CIR
interpretations placed upon a law by executive officers
are entitled to great respect by the courts. However, they
are not conclusive and will be ignored if judicially found to
be erroneous, or if they override, instead of remain
consistent with the law they seek to implement.
United BF Homeowners Association vs. BF Homes
If a discrepancy occurs between the basic law and an
implementing rule or regulation, it is the former that
National Tobacco Administration vs. COA
It is a settled rule of legal hermeneutics that the
implementing rules and regulations cannot amend the act
of Congress. To be sure, the said Circular cannot go
beyond the terms and provisions of the statute as to
prohibit something permitted and allowed by law. The
Circular cannot extend the law or expand its coverage as
the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the



Abella vs. CSC

In exercising its quasi-judicial function, an administrative
body adjudicates the rights of persons before it, in
accordance w/ the standards laid down by law. Thus,
due process requirements must be observed:
There must be a hearing, including the right to
present ones case & submit evidence in
support thereof
The tribunal must consider the evidence
The decision must have something to support
The evidence must be substantial
The decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing or at least contained
in the record & disclosed to the parties affected
The tribunal must act on its own consideration
of the law & the facts of the controversy, and
not simply accept the views of a subordinated
in arriving at a decision
The tribunal should render its decision in such
a manner that one can know the various issues
involved & the reasons for the decision
MIAA vs. Airspan Corporation
Its Charter established MIAA as an attached agency of the
Ministry of Transportation & Communications (now
DOTC). Hence, the ministry head who has the power
to determine the revision of fees, charges, and rates of
the MIAA is now the DOTC Secretary. Clearly, petitioner
has no authority to increase its fees, charges, or rates
as the power to do so is vested solely in the DOTC
Secretary, although MIAAs prerogative to recommend
possible increases thereon is of course recognized. As
an attached agency of the DOTC, the MIAA is governed
by the Administrative Code of 1987. The Administrative
Code specifically requires notice & public hearing in the
fixing of rates.

Bedruz vs. Office of the Ombudsman
As conviction of criminal cases could involve deprivation of
life or liberty of the accused, proof beyond reasonable
doubt must be established by the prosecution, unlike in
administrative cases w/c only require substantial
evidence or that amount of relevant evidence w/c a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
City of Baguio vs. Nino
The quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers w/c an
administrative agency may exercise is defined in the
enabling act of such agency. The extent to w/c an
administrative entity may exercise such powers depends
largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute
creating or empowering such agency.
Samalia vs. CA
In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure
& evidence are not strictly applied & administrative due
process cannot be fully equated w/ due process in its
strict judicial sense. Due process in an administrative
context does not require trial-type proceedings similar
to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be
heard either thru oral arguments or thru pleadings is
accorded, there is no denial of due process.



DOH vs. Camposano

Prior to imposing disciplinary sanctions, the disciplining
authority must make an independent assessment of the
facts & the law. On its face, the decision imposing
administrative sanctions must show the bases for its
Antonio vs. Ville
The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is
the opportunity to explain ones 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 judgement is rendered, the demands of due
process are sufficiently met.
Rivas vs. Sison
Due process does not necessarily require a full-blown trialtype proceeding. So long as the defendant is given every
chance to ventilate his case & present his defense, the
requirement of due process cannot be seen as having
been left unfulfilled.
Vertudes vs. Buenaflor
Petitioner cannot claim she was denied due process just
because no cross-examination took place. What is
important is that she was given the opportunity to do so.
Besides, the right to confront & cross-examine witnesses
is a personal right & can be waived. In this case, she
effectively waived her right by submitting the case for
resolution w/o questioning the lack of cross examination.
Huertas vs. Gonzales
The petitioner is estopped from claiming that he was denied
due process because he had already submitted the case
for resolution. It was only when the decision was received
that he challenged the validity of the proceedings, and
due to the principle of estoppel, these mistimed
contentions cannot anymore be given due course since
his unqualified submission to the ruling of the Committee
constitutes a waiver of his right to due process.
Quiambao vs. CA
Although the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at
any stage of the action, a party may be estopped from
raising such question if he has actively taken part in the
very proceedings w/c he questions, belatedly objecting to
the courts jurisdiction in the event that the judgement or
order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.
Cayago vs. Lina
In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges & giving
reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to
answer the accusation against him constitute the
minimum requirements of due process.
Montemayor vs. Bundalian
Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might
conceivably opine otherwise.
Administrative decisions in matters w/in the executive
jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of gross abuse
of discretion, fraud or error of law.
The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasijudicial proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative
Bayan Telecommunications vs. Republic
Observance of the mandate regarding exhaustion of
administrative remedies is a sound practice and policy.
The doctrine insures an orderly procedure which favors a
preliminary sifting process and withholds judicial
interference until administrative process would have been


allowed to duly run its course. The underlying

principle of the rule rests on the presumption that the
administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to
pass upon the matter, will decide correctly.
Heirs of Tabia vs. CA
Since what is being disputed is an action of an
administrative agency, in consonance with the principle
of exhaustion of administrative remedy, the concerned
agency should be given the opportunity to correct itself
before the intervention of the court is sought. There is a
administrative remedy must not merely initiate the
prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, but
must also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before
seeking judicial intervention.
Overseas Workers Welfare Administration vs. Chavez
Under the law, any employee who questions the validity of
his transfer should appeal to the CSC. Even then,
administrative remedies must be exhausted before
resort to the regular courts can be had.
Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete
Petitioners had ample administrative remedies under the
law to protect their rights. Perforce, it was premature
for them to commence an action for injunction before
the regular courts.
Republic vs. Lacap
Whether a contractor with an expired license at the time
of the execution of its contract is entitled to be paid for
completed projects, clearly is a pure question of law. It
does not involve an examination of the probative value
of the evidence presented by the parties. There is a
question of law when the doubt or difference arises as
to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as
to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said
question at best could be resolved only tentatively by
the administrative authorities. The final decision on the
matter rests not with them but with the courts of
justice. Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not
apply, because nothing of an administrative nature is to
be or can be done. The issue does not require technical
knowledge and experience but one that would involve
the interpretation and application of law.
Lastimoso vs. Asayo
The only issue presented by respondent in his petition for
certiorari and prohibition before the RTC was whether or
not the PNP Chief had jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the complaint filed by a private citizen against him. Said
issue being a purely legal one, the principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply to
the case.
Valdez vs. National Electrification Administration
The rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
absolute but admits of exceptions. One of these
exceptions is when only a question of law is involved. In
this case, the issue of whether the NEA validly assumed
jurisdiction over the appeal is one which calls for the
interpretation and application of the Guidelines on the
Conduct of EC District Elections. Consequently, the CA
validly assumed jurisdiction over the petition.
Holy Spirit Homeowners Association vs. Defensor
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, however, applied only where the
act of the administrative agency concerned was
performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions, &
NOT when the act pertained to its quasi-legislative



Nicanor Santos Development Corporation vs. Sec. of DAR

Before a party may be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of
the courts of justice, he is expected to have exhausted all
means of administrative redress. The court cannot
sanction petitioners trivial disregard of procedural rules.
Such rules may only be relaxed if their strict enforcement
will bring about failure of justice.
National Irrigation Administration vs. Enciso
The COA is specifically vested w/ the power, authority, &
duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining
to the revenue & receipts of, and expenditures or uses of
funds and property owned or held in trust by the
government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
In this case, the respondent should have 1st exhausted all
administrative remedies before going to court. He should
have filed a claim before the OCA prior to instituting a
complaint for collection at the RTC.
HSBC vs. G Sportswear Manufacturing Corporation
Distrust of an administrative agency alone, unsupported by
concrete evidence, is not sufficient reason to dispense w/
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,
w/c serves a very useful purpose in ensuring the efficient
& speedy disposal of cases.
Teotico vs. Baer
Non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action,
w/c is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court justifying
the dismissal of the complaint.
Phil. Pharmawealth vs. Phil. Childrens Medical Center BAC
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
is availed of when there is no appeal, nor any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. In the instant case, petitioner failed to avail of the
administrative remedies before resorting to certiorari.
Joson vs. CA
The issues raised are questions of law w/c involve the
interpretation & application of laws. Resolutions of such
questions constitutes essentially an exercise of judicial
power w/c is exclusively alloced to the SC and such courts
as the Legislature may establish. Since the issues
involved in the case at bar are purely legal questions w/c
the court may review, exhaustion of administrative
remedies may be dispensed with.
Avimao vs. Taher
In the instant case, the legal question of whether a
memorandum of the ARMM Governor, ordering the
reinstatement of an employee declared AWOL & dropped
from the rolls, was issued in excess of jurisdiction is a
question w/c is purely legal in nature, and respondent
need not abide by the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
Boncodin vs. NPC Employees Consolidated Union
The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
an inflexible rule. It may be dispensed w/ in the present
case because its application would not constitute a plain,
speedy & adequate remedy. The issues here are purely
legal, & judicial intervention has been shown urgent.
Sison vs. CA
The application of the doctrine of administrative remedies is
relaxed when a strong public interest is involved. The
protection & promotion of peoples right to health is
mandated by the Constitution. Indeed, the Court allows a
liberal interpretation of the law when a rigid enforcement
will result in a deprivation of legal rights.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Celada
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
inapplicable when the issue is rendered moot & academic.



The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies applies
only when there is an express legal provision requiring
such administrative step as a condition precedent to
taking action in court.
Flores vs. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga
Where the petitioner has available remedies w/in the
administrative machinery against the action of an
administrative board, body or officer, the intervention of
the courts can be resorted to by him only after having
exhausted all such remedies.
Mendoza vs. National Police Commission
The importance of a motion for reconsideration cannot be
overemphasized. We have held that such a motion is a
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings.
Morcal vs. Lavina
Contrary to petitioners assertion, we see no urgent need
for judicial intervention. Note that the case arose from
the protest filed by respondents against petitioners free
patent application for the subject unregistered
agricultural land. Clearly, the matter comes w/in the
exclusive primary jurisdiction of the DENR in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial powers. The impugned
Orders of the DENR Regional Office are subject to
review by the DENR Head Office. Petitioner cannot
circumvent this procedure by simply invoking a
supposed loss of faith in the said agency.
Republic vs. City of Kidapawan
Before seeking the intervention of the courts, it is a
precondition that petitioner should first avail of all the
means afforded by the administrative processes. If
PNOC-EDC was not satisfied w/ the assessment of its
property, it should have appealed to the Local Board of
Assessment Appeals w/in 60 days from receipt of the
written notice of assessment. Instead, it waited until the
issuance of a warrant of levy before it filed a petition for
injunction in the RTC, w/c was not in accordance w/ the
remedies provided in the LGC.
Verceles vs. Bureau of Labor Relations
One of the instances when the rule of exhaustion of
administrative remedies may be disregarded is when
there is a violation of due process. In this case, the
respondents have chronicled from the very start that
they were indefinitely suspended w/o the benefit of a
formal charge sufficient in form & substance. Thus, the
rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies cannot
squarely apply to them.
Rubio vs. Paras
The general rule is that the aggrieved party is mandated
to exhaust all administrative remedies available before
resorting to judicial recourse. The tribunal, either
judicial or quasi-judicial must be given a chance to
correct the imputed errors on its act or order. The rule is
an element of the petitioners right to action, and if he
fails or refuses to avail himself of the same, the
judiciary shall decline to interfere.
Phil. Health Insurance Corp. vs. Chinese General Hospital
The instant case falls as one of the exceptions, concerning
as it does public interest. As mentioned earlier,
although they were not made parties to the instant
case, the rights of millions of Filipinos who are members
of PHILHEALTH and who obviously rely on it for their
health care, are considered, nonetheless, parties to the
present case. This Court is mandated herein to take
conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of
the interests of the state, the health care giver and the
members. With these in mind, We hold that the greater



interest of the greater number of people, mostly

members of PHILHEALTH, is paramount.
Estrada vs. CA
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
requires that resort be 1st made to the administrative
authorise in the resolution of a controversy falling under
their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to a a
court of justice for review. A premature invocation of a
courts intervention would render a complaint w/o a cause
of action & dismissible.
Duenas vs. Santos Subd. Homeowners Association
The rule is that before a party is allowed to seek
intervention of the courts, it is a precondition that he
avail of himself of all administrative processes afforded
him. However, said rule is not w/o exceptions. One of
those exceptions is when the questions posed are purely
Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science & Technology
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies only
applies when there is competency in the administrative
body to act upon the matter complained of. The doctrine
does not apply in the case at bar because CHED has no
power to award damages w/c is what the petitioner
prayed for.
Valencia vs. CA
An administrative decision must be appealed to the
administrative superiors up to the highest level before it
may be elevated to the courts for review. Hence, an
appeal to the Office of the President is proper because
the President is superior to the head of the DAR Regional
Office. An appeal to the Office of the President is the last
step that an aggrieved party should take in the
administrative hierarchy, as it is the plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy available to the petitioner.
Bangus Fry Fisherfolk vs. Lanzanas
The settled rule is before a party may seek the intervention
of the courts, he should first avail of all the means
afforded by administrative processes. Hence, if a remedy
within the administrative machinery is still available, with
a procedure prescribed pursuant to law for an
administrative officer to decide the controversy, a party
should first exhaust such remedy before resorting to the
courts. The premature invocation of a court's intervention
renders the complaint without cause of action and
dismissible on such ground.
Mendoza vs. Laxina
The rule is that, before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he
should have availed of all the means of administrative
processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the
administrative machinery can still be availed of by giving
the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to
decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction,
then such remedy should be exhausted first before the
courts judicial power can be sought. The premature
invocation of the courts intervention is fatal to ones
cause of action.
Camacho vs. Gloria
This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
without its practical and legal reasons. For one thing,
availment of administrative remedy entails lesser
expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of
controversies. The administrative authority must be
given an opportunity to act and correct the errors
committed in the administrative forum.
Azarcon vs. Bunagan
The questioned Order merely involves an interpretation of
the dispositive portion of the Board decision which had


become final and executory. Hence, the petitioner

properly filed a petition for Certiorari before the CA
where she ascribed grave abuse of discretion in the
issuance of the order.
DAR vs. Apex Investment
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
relative one & is flexible depending on the peculiarity
and uniqueness of the factual & circumstantial settings
of a case.
Corsiga vs. Defensor
The question in the complaint was not purely of law, as
certain facts need to be resolved first. Hence it cannot
be argued that court intervention is warranted.
Ortizos claim that the act of reassigning him was grave
abuse of discretion was not substantiated. Official
functions are presumed to be regular unless proven
otherwise. Also, the claim that there was urgency in
going to court based on fear of administrative charges
was speculative.
Laguna CATV Network vs. Maraan
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
ensures an orderly procedure w/c favors a preliminary
sifting process, avoidance of interference of functions &
preventions of attempts to swamp the courts by a resort
to them in the first instance.
Associated Comm. & Wireless Services vs. Dumlao
The underlying principle of the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies rests on the presumption that
the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance
to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly.
A partys failure to exhaust administrative remedies is
Chavez vs. PEA
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
does not apply when the issue involved is purely legal or
is a constitutional question. The principal issue in this
case is the capacity of AMARI to acquire lands held by
Aurillo vs. Rabi
The general rule is that an aggrieved party is mandated to
1st exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a
judicial action for redress from acts of administrative
bodies or offices in the performance of their quasijudicial functions; otherwise, said action may be
dismissed for prematurity.
Gonzales vs. CA
The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies is that the courts must allow the
administrative agencies to carry out their functions and
discharge their responsibilities w/in the specialized areas
of their respective competence. It is presumed that an
administrative agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass
upon a matter, will decide the same correctly, or correct
any previous error committed in its forum. Furthermore,
reasons of law, comity & convenience prevent the courts
from entertaining cases proper for determination by
administrative agencies. Hence, premature resort to the
courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of action
of the petitioner.
Garcia vs. CA
The records would show that petitioner filed the petition
for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition w/ the trial
court even while the administrative investigation was
yet ongoing. Petitioner's immediate recourse to the trial
court was premature & precipitate. From the decision of
the PCA Board, once rendered, an administrative
remedy of appeal to the CSC would still be available to



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. 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.
Castro vs. Gloria
If the case involves only legal questions, the litigant need
not exhaust all administrative remedies before such
judicial relief can be sought. This is because issues of law
cannot be resolved w/ finality by the administrative
officers. Appeal to the administrative officer in such a
case would be an exercise in futility.
Bordallo vs. PRC
The failure of the petitioners to appeal to the PRC is not
fatal to petitioners cause. This is because when the
question is purely legal, the doctrine of exhaustion
administrative remedies does not apply.
Zabat vs. CA
When the action was denied by the Awards & Arbitration
Committee, the petitioner should have elevated the case
to the NHA General Manager, pursuant to NHA Circular
13. The award & execution of the contract to sell could
have been appealed to the Office of the President under
EO 19. Before a party may seek the intervention of the
court, it is a precondition that he should 1 st avail of all the
means afforded by administrative processes. None of the
administrative remedies above were resorted to by the
petitioner, thus foreclosing on their right to seek judicial
Zamboanga del Norte vs. CA
Mere allegations of arbitrariness will not suffice to vest in
the trial court the power that has been specifically
granted by law to special government agencies.
Lopez vs. Manila
One of the reasons for the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is the separation of powers w/c
enjoins upon the judiciary a policy of non-interference w/
matters coming primarily w/in the competence of other
SSS Employees Association vs. Velasco
SSEA failed to take an appeal from the order of the Bureau
of Labor Relations to the Sec. of Labor, pursuant to Art.
250 of the Labor Code. Absent a showing that SSEA
administrative remedies, a premature resort to the courts
would result in the dismissal of the petition.
Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula vs. CA
The DAR Adjudicatory Board (DARAB) Revised Rules of
Procedure states that decisions of the DAR Secretary
cannot be questioned before DARAB. The determination
of the Sec. of the DAR as to the rightful beneficiaries has
the effect of a final ruling or award by the DAR itself and
therefore resort to DARAB to question the ruling of the
Secretary would be improper.
In cases of denial of due process, exhaustion of available
administrative remedies is unnecessary. The aggrieved
party may seek judicial relief outright.
China Banking Corp. vs. Members of Board of Trustees
Among the accepted exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies are:
where the question in dispute is purely a legal
one; and


where the controverted act is patently illegal or

was performed without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction.
Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to question the validity
of the challenged issuances of the HDMF which are
alleged to have been issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Moreover, while certiorari as a remedy may not be used as
a substitute for an appeal, especially for a lost appeal,
this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is
genuinely meritorious. It has been said that where the
rigid application of the rules would frustrate substantial
justice, or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance,
the courts are justified in exempting a particular case
from the operation of the rules.
Roxas & Co. vs. CA
As a general rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke
the jurisdiction of the courts of justice, he is expected to
have exhausted all means of administrative redress.
This is not absolute, however. There are instances when
judicial action may be resorted to immediately. Among
these exceptions are:
when the question raised is purely legal
when the administrative body is in estoppel
when the act complained of is patently illegal
when there is urgent need for judicial
when the respondent acted in disregard of due
when the respondent is a dept secretary whose
acts, as an alter ego of the President, bear the
implied/assumed approval of the latter
when irreparable damage will be suffered
when there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy
when strong public interest is involved
when the subject of the controversy is private
in quo warranto proceedings


Baviera vs. Paglinawan
The rule in this jurisdiction is that courts will not interfere
with the conduct of preliminary investigations or
reinvestigations or in the determination of what
constitutes sufficient probable cause for the filing of the
corresponding information against an offender. Courts
are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for
that of the executive branch.
As the matter of whether to prosecute or not is purely
discretionary on his part, courts cannot compel a public
prosecutor to file the corresponding information, upon a
complaint, where he finds the evidence before him
insufficient to warrant the filing of an action in court.
The prosecutors findings on the existence of probable
cause are not subject to review by the courts, unless
these are patently shown to have been made with grave
abuse of discretion.
Decin vs. Tayco
The power to investigate or conduct preliminary
investigation on charges against any public officers or
employees may be exercised by an investigator or by
any provincial or city prosecutor or their assistants,
either in their regular capacities or as deputized
Ombudsman prosecutors. The fact that all prosecutors
are in effect deputized Ombudsman prosecutors under



the OMB-DOJ Circular is a mere superfluity. Thus, there is

not even a need to delegate the conduct of the
preliminary investigation to an agency which has the
jurisdiction to do so in the first place. However, the
Ombudsman may assert its primary jurisdiction at any
stage of the investigation.
Osea vs. Ambrosio
Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction,
courts cannot or will not determine a controversy where
the issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience & services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical & intricate matters of fact.
Euro-Med Laboratories Phil. vs. Province of Batangas
The court may raise the issue of primary jurisdiction upon
its own initiative & its invocation cannot be waived by the
failure of the parties to argue it, as the doctrine exists for
the proper distribution of power between judicial &
administrative bodies & not for the conveniences of the
In such a case, the court:
May suspend the judicial process pending
referral of such issues to the administrative body
for its view, or
disadvantaged, dismiss the case w/o prejudice
Sherwill Devt. Corp. vs. Sitio Sto. Nino Residents Assoc.
Jurisdiction having been correctly assumed by the Director
of Lands over the parties conflicting claims, the case
should, in accordance w/ law, remain there for final
adjudication. The principle of primary jurisdiction applies
to administrative proceedings as well.
Ros vs. DAR
Upon the enactment of CARL and the issuance of AO 12, the
DAR has been given exclusive jurisdiction in the approval
restructuring, or readjustment of agricultural lands into
non-agricultural uses.
The courts are precluded from settling a controversy over
w/c jurisdiction has been lodged w/ an administrative
agency of special competence.
Paloma vs. Mora
The CSC had primary jurisdiction over the case since it was
designated by law to have the authority to settle
controversies relating to Civil Service and to implement
the Civil Service Law and other related laws.
The courts cannot arrogate unto themselves jurisdiction
initially lodged in an administrative agency of special
competence. Only when administrative remedies have
been exhausted will a resort to the courts be deemed
GMA Network vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting
The NTC has jurisdiction over the case since it has been
delegated by statute the authority to promulgate rules &
regulations in order to encourage fair competition among
broadcasting companies of different forms of media. The
courts do not have jurisdiction over the present case
because the allegations presented are concerned w/
technical matters w/c are well w/in NTCs domain.
Longino vs. General
Administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction
and, as such, could wield only such as are specifically
granted to them by the enabling statutes. In relation
thereto is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction involving
matters that demand the special competence of
administrative agencies even if the question involved is
also judicial in nature.


Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving

a question within which the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, especially when the question
demands the sound exercise of administrative discretion
requiring special knowledge, experience and services of
the administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact. The court cannot arrogate into
itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the
jurisdiction of which is initially lodged with the
administrative body of special competence.
But disputes requiring no special skill or technical
expertise of an administrative body and which could be
resolved by applying pertinent provisions of the Civil
Code are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular
Galla vs. Ellice Agro-Industrial Corp.
The court cannot address the petitioners concerns
regarding circumvention of land reform laws, for the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the court to
arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve the
Smart Communication vs. NTC
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.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the
administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or
adjudicatory function. This in cases involving disputes,
the practice has been to refer the same to an
administrative agency of special competence pursuant
to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
Where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of
a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency
in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the
regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same.
Dulos Realty vs. CA
The HLURB is entrusted w/ the regulation of housing &
subdivision developments. Accordingly, the trial court
properly relied on the HLURB decision. By reason of the
special knowledge & expertise of administrative
agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction,
they are in a better position to pass judgement thereon.
Their findings of fact in that regard are generally
accorded great respect, if not finality by the courts.
Roxas & Co. vs. CA
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a
court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged
with an administrative body of special competence. DAR
is in a better position to resolve petitioners application
for conversion, being primarily the agency possessing
the necessary expertise on the matter. The power to
determine whether the subject lands are nonagricultural, hence, exempt from the coverage of the
CARL lies with the DAR, not with this Court.