Judicial Recourse and Review

 What are considered in the fixing of rates? (1) the present valuation of all the property of a public utility, and (2) the fixed assets. The property is deemed taken and condemned by the public at the time of filing the petition, and the rate should go up and down with the physical valuation of the property. [Ynchausti vs Public Utility Commissioner (1922)]

D. Judicial Recourse and Review

I. Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction II. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

III. Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action

I. Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction

GENERAL RULE

Courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one which requires the expertise of

15 3

administrative agencies and the legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in the rulings.

It can only occur where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction between the court and the administrative agency.

It is a question of the court yielding to the agency because of the latter‘s expertise, and does not amount to ouster of the court. [Texas & Pacific Railway v Abilene (1907)]

 It is the recent jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases that demand the special competence of administrative agencies. It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the determination of the case 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. [Industrial Enterprises v CA (1990)]

 Well-entrenched is the rule that courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency. Administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of their adjudicative functions, latitude which includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within their special competence [(Quiambao vs CA (2005)]

 The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view. And, in such cases, the court cannot arrogate into itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. [Sherwill vs Sitio Sto Nino (2005)]

Rationale: In this era of clogged docket courts, the need for specialized administrative boards with the special knowledge and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical matters has become well nigh indispensable. Between the power lodged in an administrative body and a court, the unmistakable trend has been to refer it to the former. [GMA vs ABS CBN (2005)]

Requisites:

(1) Administrative body and the regular court have concurrent and original jurisdiction

(2) Question to be resolved requires expertise of administrative agency

(3) Legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in rulings

(4) Administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function (not rule-making or quasi-legislative function [Smart vs NTC (2003)]

Rationale: It is presumed that an administrative agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass upon a matter, would decide the same correctly, or correct any previous error committed in its forum [Caballes v Sison (2004)]

When the Doctrine is Inapplicable:

(1) If the agency has exclusive jurisdiction

(2) When the issue is not within the competence of the administrative body to act on.

(3) When the issue involved is clearly a factual question that does not require specialized skills and knowledge for resolution to justify the exercise of primary jurisdiction.

Effect

The case is not dismissed, but merely suspended until after the matters within the competence of the administrative agency are threshed out and determined. [Vidad vs RTC (1993)]

II. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

GENERAL RULE

Where the law has delineated the procedure by which administrative appeal or remedy could be effected, the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated. [Pascual vs Provincial Board (1959)]

Requisites:

(1) The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function.

(2) Judicial review is available.

(3) The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction.

Rationale:

(1) Legal reason: The law prescribes a procedure.

(2) Practical reason: To give the agency a chance to correct its own errors [and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts

(3) Reasons of comity: Expedience, courtesy, convenience.

EXCEPTIONS to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies:

(1) Purely legal questions. [Castro vs Secretary (2001)]

(2) Steps to be taken are merely matters of form.

[Pascual vs Provincial Board (1959)]

15 4

(3) Administrative remedy not exclusive but merely cumulative or concurrent to a judicial remedy.

[Pascual vs Provincial Board (1959)]

(4) Validity and urgency of judicial action or intervention. [Paat vs CA (1997)]

(5) No other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. [Paat v CA (1997)t;

Information Technology Found’n v COMELEC (2004)]

(6) Resort to exhaustion will only be oppressive and patently unreasonable. [Paat vs CA (1997);

Cipriano vs Marcelino (1972)]

(7) Where the administrative remedy is only permissive or voluntary and not a prerequisite to the institution of judicial proceedings.

[Corpuz vs Cuaderno (1962)]

(8) Application of the doctrine will only cause great and irreparable damage which cannot be prevented except by taking the appropriate court action. [Paat vs CA (1997); Cipriano vs Marcelino (1972)]

(9) When it involves the rule-making or quasi-legislative functions of an administrative agency. [Smart vs NTC (2003)]

(10) Administrative agency is in estoppel. [Republic vs Sandiganbayan (1996)]

(11) Doctrine of qualified political agency

(12) Subject of controversy is private land in land case proceedings. [Paat vs CA (1997)]

(13) Blatant violation of due process. [Paat vs CA (1997); Pagara vs CA]

(14) Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction. [Republic vs Sandiganbayan (1996)]

(15) Administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

[Paat vs CA (1997)]

(16) Resort to administrative remedy will amount to a nullification of a claim. [DAR vs Apex Investment (2003); Paat vs CA (1997)]

(17) No administrative review provided for by law.

[Estrada vs CA (2004)]

(18) Issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies rendered moot. [Estrada vs CA (2004)]

(19) In quo warranto proceedings. [Corpus vs Cuaderno (1962)]

(20) Law expressly provides for a different review procedure. [Samahang Magbubukid vs CA (1999)]

Effect of Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies:

It does not affect jurisdiction of the court.

The only effect of non-compliance is it that will deprive complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss.

But if not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived. [Republic vs Sandiganbayan (1996)]

III. Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action

No resort to the courts will be allowed unless the administrative action has been completed and there is nothing left to be done in the administrative structure.

The Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action is a broader doctrine which encompasses the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. It is a prerequisite for judicial review.

P P P ^{O O O L L L I I I T T T I I I C C C A A A L L L}

LAW

BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2012 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ramon Carlo Marcaida |Commissioner Raymond Velasco • Mara Kriska Chen |Deputy Commissioners Barbie Kaye Perez |Secretary Carmen Cecilia Veneracion |Treasurer Hazel Angeline Abenoja|Auditor COMMITTEE HEADS Eleanor Balaquiao • Mark Xavier Oyales | Acads Monique Morales • Katleya Kate Belderol • Kathleen Mae Tuason (D) • Rachel Miranda (D) |Special Lectures Patricia Madarang • Marinella Felizmenio |Secretariat Victoria Caranay |Publicity and Promotions Loraine Saguinsin • Ma. Luz Baldueza |Marketing Benjamin Joseph Geronimo • Jose Lacas |Logistics Angelo Bernard Ngo • Annalee Toda|HR Anne Janelle Yu • Alyssa Carmelli Castillo |Merchandise Graciello Timothy Reyes |Layout Charmaine Sto. Domingo • Katrina Maniquis |Mock Bar Krizel Malabanan • Karren de Chavez |Bar Candidates’ Welfare Karina Kirstie Paola Ayco • Ma. Ara Garcia |Events OPERATIONS HEADS Charles Icasiano • Katrina Rivera |Hotel Operations Marijo Alcala • Marian Salanguit |Day-Operations Jauhari Azis |Night-Operations Vivienne Villanueva • Charlaine Latorre |Food Kris Francisco Rimban • Elvin Salindo |Transpo Paula Plaza |Linkages