Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    Aaaa

    Uploaded by

    Zhalman Nickolas Carzten Torres
    This document discusses the doctrine of prior resort, also known as the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction. It states that courts may not act on a matter which falls under the competence of an administrative body until that body has acted. It provides exceptions to this doctrine, such as when the administrative agency acts in a patently illegal manner or there are unreasonable delays. It also discusses the bases, methods, and scope of judicial review of administrative decisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aaaa

    Uploaded by

    Zhalman Nickolas Carzten Torres
    97 views12 pages
    This document discusses the doctrine of prior resort, also known as the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction. It states that courts may not act on a matter which falls under the competence of an administrative body until that body has acted. It provides exceptions to this doctrine, such as when the administrative agency acts in a patently illegal manner or there are unreasonable delays. It also discusses the bases, methods, and scope of judicial review of administrative decisions.

    Original Description:

    asfasfa

    Original Title

    aaaa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the doctrine of prior resort, also known as the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction. It states that courts may not act on a matter which falls under the competence of an administrative body until that body has acted. It provides exceptions to this doctrine, such as when the administrative agency acts in a patently illegal manner or there are unreasonable delays. It also discusses the bases, methods, and scope of judicial review of administrative decisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    97 views12 pages

    Aaaa

    Uploaded by

    Zhalman Nickolas Carzten Torres
    This document discusses the doctrine of prior resort, also known as the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction. It states that courts may not act on a matter which falls under the competence of an administrative body until that body has acted. It provides exceptions to this doctrine, such as when the administrative agency acts in a patently illegal manner or there are unreasonable delays. It also discusses the bases, methods, and scope of judicial review of administrative decisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 12

    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.

    You might also like