Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
appeal from an opinion or order by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
to the President of the Philippines is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy available
to the petitioner.
SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall, except as
otherwise provided for by special laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days
from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for reconsideration thereof
is filed within such period.
Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be allowed and entertained,
save in exceptionally meritorious cases.
When a party fails to exhaust all administrative remedies, a premature resort to the
courts would result in the dismissal of the petition.
Factual issues are not proper subjects of an original petition for certiorari before the
Supreme Court, as its power to review is limited to questions of jurisdiction, or grave
abuse of discretion of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals or officials.
In the matter of judicial review of administrative decisions, some statutes especially
provide for such judicial review; others are silent. Mere silence, however, does not
necessarily imply that judicial review is unavailable.
Where the law stands mute, the accepted view is that the extraordinary remedies in the
Rules of Court are still available
Section 5. Substantial evidence. In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. (n)
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 within 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.
Prior resort to these administrative bodies will not only satisfy the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies, but may likewise prove advantageous to the parties as the
proceedings will be conducted by experts, and will not be limited by the technical rules
of procedure and evidence.
The respondent Commission is n estoppel to invoke the rule on the exhaustion of
administrative remedies, considering that in its resolution, it declared that the opinion of
the Secretary of Justice were Advisory in nature, which may either be accepted or
ignored by the office seeking the opinion, and any aggrieved party has the court for
recourse, thereby leading the petitioner to conclude that only a final judicial ruling in her
favor wold be accepted by the Commission.
The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute but admits of
exceptions. One of these exceptions is when the question is purely legal, such as the
one presented in the case at bar.
As to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the rule is well-settled that this
requirement does not apply where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts
as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied approval of the latter, unless actually
disapproved by him.
Moreover, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies also yields to other
exceptions, suchas when the question involved is purely legal, as in the instant case, or
where the questioned act is patently illegal, arbitrary or oppressive.
Primary jurisdiction involves matters that demand the special competence of
administrative agencies.
However, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or
intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though
the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply to this case. The issues presented
here do not require the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of respondent for
their resolution. On the contrary, the issues here are purely legal questions which are
within the competence and jurisdiction of the Court.
True, the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies are
subject to certain exceptions, to wit:
where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice
the complainant;
where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and
oppressive;
where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by
the courts of justice;
where judicial intervention is urgent;
where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage;
where the controverted acts violate due process;
where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered
moot;
where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
where strong public interest is involved; and
in quo warranto proceedings.