COROLLARY PRINCIPLES

Doctrine of Prior Resort – also known as

doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction
where there is competence or jurisdiction vested
upon on administrative body to act upon the
matter, no resort to courts may be made before
such administrative body shall have acted upon
the matter. This rule applies only where the
administrative agency execises quasi- judicial or
adjudicatory functions. (UST vs, Danes Sanchez
GR no. 165569 July 9, 2010)
Other cases:
(A) Industrial Enterprises Inc vs CA 184
SCRA 426
(B) Garcia vs CA GR no. 100579 June 06,
2001
(C) Cristobal vs CA 291 SCRA 122
(D) PAAT vs CA 266 SCRA 167
(E) Crusaders Broadcasting System vs
NTC GR no. 139583 May 31, 2000
(F) Philrock vs. Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission GR no. 132848
June 8, 2001
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

•The jurisdiction of the court is not affected but

complainant is deprived of a cause of action
which is a ground for a motion to dismiss.
However, if no motion to dismiss is filed on this
ground, there is deemed to be a waiver. (Soto vs.
Jareno 144 SCRA 116 Eastern Shipping Lines vs.
POEA 166 SCRA 533)
 EXCEPTION TO THE DOCTRINE

(1) Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (Alter Ego

Doctrine)
(2) Where the Admin Agency is fruitless e.g. suit for
recovery of title to office must be instituted within one
year from illegal ouster otherwise the action prescribes.
(3) Where there is estoppel on the part of the admin
agency (Vda de Tan vs. Veterans Backpay Commission
105 Phil 377)
(4) Where the issues involved is purely legal question.
(Palma- Fernandez vs. Dela Paz 160 SCRA 751),
(Castro vs. Sec Gloria GR no 132174 August 20, 2001),
(Ty vs. Trampe 250 SCRA 500)
(5) Where the administrative action is patently illegal,
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. (Cabada
vs. Alunan 260 SCRA 838)
(6) Where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction. (Republic vs Sandiganbayan 256 SCRA 438)
(7) Where there is irreparable injury threat thereof,
unless judicial recourse is immediately made. (De Lara
vs. Cloribel 14 SCRA 269) (NFA vs CA 253 SCRA 470)
(8) In land cases, where the subject matter is private
land.
(9) Where the law does not make exhaustion a condition
precedent to judicial recourse, or where no
administrative review is provided by law. (Mark James
Maglalang vs. PAGCOR GR no 190566 December 11,
2013)
(10) Where observance of the doctrine will result in the
nullification of the claim.
(11) Where there are special reasons or circumstances
demanding immediate action.
Cases:
(A) Roxas & Co vs. CA GR no. 127876 December
17, 1999
(B) DAR vs Apex Invesment and Financing Corp
GR no. 149422 April 10, 2003
(12) When due process of law is clearly violated.
(Anzaldo vs. Clave 119 SCRA 353) (Zambales Chromite
vs CA 94 SCRA 261) (Pagara vs. CA 254 SCRA 606)
(13) When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy. (Quisumbing vs. Judge
Gumban 193 SCRA 5201) (Estuerte vs CA 193
SCRA 541)
Other cases:
(A) Information Technology Foundation of the
Philippines vs. COMELEC GR no. 159139 January
13, 2004.
(B) Paat vs. CA 266 SCRA 167
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
Rule: Except when the constitution requires or allows,
judicial review may be granted or withheld as congress
chooses, thus the law may provide that a determination
made by an administrative agency shall be final and
irrevivable. In such case there is no violation of due
process.
However, Sec 1 Part 2 Art. VII Philippine Constitution
which provides that the judicial power includes the power of
the Courts of Justice to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any agency or
instrumentality of government, clearly means the judicial
review of administrative decisions cannot be denied the
courts when there is an allegation of grave abuse of
discretion.
 BASES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. The constitution , Sec. 7 Art. IX-4
2. Statutes
3. General Principles of Law

San Miguel Corp vs Secretary of Labor GR no.

L-39195 May 16, 1975
Continental Marble vs NLRC 161 SCRA 151
Unicraft Industries International vs CA GR no.
134903 March 23, 2001
 METHODS OF OBTAINING JUDICIAL
REVIEW (CLASSES)

1. (A) Statutory
(B) Non- statutory

2. Direct or Collateral
Cases:
Co vs. HRET 179 SCRA 692
 COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION

1. Rule 43 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

*Court of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction over
final judgment on final order of CTA and from Awards,
judgment, final orders or resolution of or authorized by
any quasi- judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-
judicial functions.
2. Philippine Sinter Corp. vs Cagayan Electric Power
& Light GR no. 127371 April 25, 2002
3. Commendador vs de Villa 200 SCRA 80
QUESTIONS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. Questions of Law
2. Questions of Fact
a. When expressly allowed by statute (Ortua vs. Singson
Encarnacion 59 Phil 440)
b. Fraud, imposition or mistake other than error of judgment in
evaluating the evidence
c. Error in appreciation of the pleading and in the interpretation
of documentary evidence presented by the parties (Tantiang
Teek vs, Commission 40 O.G. 6th Supp. 125)
3. Mixed Questions of Law and Fact
(Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts)
Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so
involved with and dependent upon a question of law as to be in
substance and effect a decision on the latter, the court will, in
order to describe the legal question, examine the entire record
including the evidence if necessary.