DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

It may occur that court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which means that the matters involved is
also judicial in character. However, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and
knowledge of proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then
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 Court.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires that a plaintiff should first seek relief in an administrative proceeding
before he seeks remedy in Court, even though matter is properly presented to Court, which is within its jurisdiction. The
Court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving question within jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal. The
Court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving question within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal
prior to the decision of that question by the administrative tribunal:

(1) Where the question demands administrative determination requiring special knowledge, experience, and
services of the administrative tribunal;
(2) Where the question requires determination of technical and intricate issues of fact; and
(3) Where uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered.

*Villaflor v. CA

“In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the
authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which its initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence.”

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction illustrates a situation where a plaintiff should first seek relief from court, even
though the matter is properly cognizable by the Court. The doctrine also requires that if the case has been filed in court,
the latter should suspend the judicial proceedings until the matter shall have been threshed out by the administrative
agency which has been vested with authority to resolve the same.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction v. Exhaustion of administrative remedies

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in
the courts, the judicial process being suspended
pending referral of certain issues to the
administrative agency for its views.
Concerned with promoting proper relationships
between courts & administrative agencies charged
with particular regulatory duties.
It applies in cases filed with trial courts which
suspend the proceedings until referral to
administrative agency.
It applies where a claim is cognizable in the first
instance by the administrative agency alone,
judicial interference being withheld until the
administrative process has run its course and
agency action is ripe for review
It is invoked in petitions for certiorari filed with
Court of appeals, or in few instances in trial court,
which resolves the case on the merit.
When does the doctrine of primary jurisdiction not apply?

 Where administrative agency has no jurisdiction, doctrine does not apply.

DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Recourse through court action cannot prosper until all the remedies have been exhausted at the administrative level.
When an adequate remedy has been provided within the executive department of the government, but nevertheless, a
litigant fails or refuses to avail himself of the same, the court will decline to interfere. Aggrieved party must not merely
initiate the prescribed administrative procedures to obtain relief but must pursue them to their appropriate conclusion
before seeking judicial intervention. Hence, if party aggrieved by decision of an administrative official should first apply
for review of such decision by higher administrative authority before seeking judicial relief, otherwise his court suit may
be dismissed for prematurity or lack of cause of action.

What is the effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies?

It does not affect the jurisdiction of court but 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, ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the
case and try it.

Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is a ground for a motion to dismiss or is a defense which may be raised in
the answer. If such ground has not been raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer to the complaint, it is deemed.

What is the purpose of the doctrine?

It ensures an orderly procedure which favors preliminary shifting process, particularly with respect to matters peculiarly
within competence of the administrative agency, avoidance of interference with functions of administrative agency by
withholding judicial action until the administrative process had run its course, and prevention of attempts to swamp the
courts by a resort to them in the first instance.

It provides less expensive and more speedy solutions to disputes.

It gives administrative agency the opportunity to act and correct errors committed in administrative forum.