Exhaustion of Remedies

This is my 100^th post; a milestone. Hurray!

If you have a problem in an administrative body and it hands you an unfavorable decision in your case, going to court isn't automatic. The body must be given a chance to correct its errors. For the sake of comity and convenience, the courts won't come into the picture until the administrative processes are finished. Accordingly and depending on the particular administrative body, appeals should go through the regional director and all the way to the appropriate department secretary before you go to court. Once started, an administrative action must be pursued until its completion (doctrine of finality of administrative action.) If you back a way, you have a problem.

Even if you file a special civil action, the courts will dismiss it if they see that you didn't take the other remedies available. That includes questioning the legality of a tax. Even a certiorari can be turned down if you didn't exhaust the other available remedies.

The courts will not touch an administrative body's decision because they presuppose that the body's technical knowledge should first be applied before they can examine any claim of wrongdoing. Decisions of the administrative bodies are given considerable thought by the courts, and in many cases can even influence a court decision. This is known as the doctrine of prior resort.

There are, however, exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of remedies. These are the following:

1.) The alter ego doctrine/doctrine of qualified political agency

All official acts of a member of the cabinet are considered official acts of the president himself. Consequently, if a department undersecretary makes a ruling it's as if it was made by the department secretary himself. In that case, the next resort is the courts. Some departments even have rules that specify which court the decision should be appealed to. Decisions of the DAR secretary, for instance, can be brought to the CA.

2.) The remedy is pointless/useless

3.) The administrative agency is in estoppel

Estoppel is a defense of one party if the other party doesn't act despite the opportunity given.

4.) If the issue in the case involves a pure legal question

There is a question of law when there are doubts about what the law says caused by the facts proven in the case. One example would be somebody questioning the penalty for a particular violation, calling it excessive, but admitting to his own wrongdoing (Castro vs. Secretary, GR 132174, August 20, 2001.)

5.) The administrative action is illegal

If the action is made beyond the jurisdiction set by law, or obviously gross.

6.) Unreasonable delay or inaction on the part of the administrative body

7.) If court action is necessary to prevent irreparable damage

8.) In land cases where the subject matter is private land

9.) If the law itself doesn't make exhaustion as a requirement for later judicial action

Ex. See my post “Paths to the CTA.”

10.) If observing the rule on exhaustion of remedies will obliterate the claim

11.) When there are special reasons or circumstances that need immediate court action

If there are no remedies available in the administrative body, then resort can be made to the courts. The SC laid down 2 requirements for this: first, the circumstances show that a court action is urgent; and second, the administrative action is clearly illegal and the body lacks jurisdiction.

12.) If there is a clear violation of the right to due process

Ex. if the government confiscated your land for public purposes but didn't inform you nor pay compensation.

13.) If the rules don't provide an adequate and fast remedy

Exhaustion may be disregarded in any of the following instances: denial of due process, pure legal questions, a grossly illegal action, estoppel, irreparable damage, secretaries acting as the president's alter ego, if exhaustion is unreasonable, if the claim will be lost in the process of exhaustion, private land in land cases, judicial intervention is necessary and no other adequate remedy is available.