Primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction


The doctrine of primary jurisdiction comes into play when an issue can be resolved by an administrative or quasi-judicial agency, and by the courts. Remember that administrative agencies are under the executive branch of the government. In contrast, courts are under the judicial branch, which is co-equal with the executive branch.

When confronted with such an issue, you may ask - to which body should the matter be submitted for resolution, the administrative agency or the court?

This is when the doctrine of primary jurisdiction becomes important. In the case of Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. vs. The Province of Batangas, GR No. 148106, July 17, 2006, the Supreme Court stated:

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction. It 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 agency. In such a case, the court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies 

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is closely related to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Its importance was explained by the Supreme Court in Marichu G. Ejera vs. Beau Henry L. Merto et al, GR No. 163109, January 22, 2014, where it stated:

The importance and value of the exhaustion of administrative remedies as a condition before resorting to judicial action cannot be brushed aside. As the Court points out in Universal Robina Corp. (Corn Division) v. Laguna Lake Development Authority:

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed.

Thus, the general rule is that there should be prior resort to the administrative agency concerned before the matter is brought before the courts. The same case lays down 11 exceptions, as follows:

1. where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
2. where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
3. where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
4. where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
5. where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;
6. where judicial intervention is urgent;
7. where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage;
8. where the controversial acts violate due process;
9. where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;
10. where strong public interest is involved; and
11. in quo warranto proceedings