G.R. No.

L-64279 April 30, 1984

Pesigan vs. Angeles

Doctrine:
Laws become effective only 15 days after their publication in the Official Gazette under the Civil Code
and the Administrative Code

Facts:
Anselmo Pesigan and Marcelo Pesigan were carabao dealers who transported Carabaos on the evening
of April 2, 1982 from Camarines Sur to Batangas. When they arrived in Camarines Norte, the carabaos
were confiscated. This is due to Exectuive Order No. 262 prohibiting the transport of any carabao from
one province to another but was only published in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982. The Pesigans
filed for replevin but judge Domingo Angeles dismissed the case for lack of cause of action.

Issue:
Whether or not the Executive Order No. 262 valid and enforceable against the Pesigans

Ruling:
NO. The Court held that the said executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans as it was
not yet published in the Official Gazette at the time the carabaos were confiscated. Laws become
effective only 15 days after their publication in the Official Gazette under the Civil Code and the
Administrative Code. The word "laws" in article 2 includes circulars and regulations which prescribe
penalties.

Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make the said
penalties binding on the persons affected thereby.
G.R. No. 110571 March 10, 1994
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc vs. CA

Doctrine:
The Supreme Court through its rule-making power can create a circular that has the force and effect of
law.

Facts: BOI granted First Lepanto to amend certificate of recognition by changing scope of its reg product
from glazed floor tiles to ceramic stiles. Mariwasa opposed and a filed motion for reconsideration.
Mariwasa filed petition for review with respondent CA. CA temporarily restrained BOI from
implementing decision, 20 days lapsed without respondent court issuing preliminary injunction. While
the case is pending, Lepanto filed motion to dismiss the case straight to the SC on the grounds that
jurisdiction over BOI is vested with SC.

Issue:
Whether or not CA has jurisdiction.

Ruling:
Yes, E.O 226 grants the right of appeal from decisions of BOI. It simply deals with procedural aspects
with the court that has the power to regulate by virtue of its cons rule-making power. Circular 1-91
repealed or suspended EO 226 in so far as the manner of appeal. Appeals from decisions of BOI, which
statutes allowed to be filed with SC, are brought to CA.
G.R. No. 88291 May 31, 1991
Maceda vs Macaraig

Doctrine:
For delegation to be constitutionally valid, the law must be complete in itself and must set forth
sufficient standards.

Facts:
Commonwealth Act No. 120 created the NPC. On 1987, Executive Order No. 93 withdrew all tax and
duty incentives granted to government and private entities which had been restored under Presidential
Decree Nos. 1931 and 1955 but it gave the authority to FIRB to restore, revise the scope and prescribe
the date of effectivity of such tax and/or duty exemptions.

The FIRB restored NPC's tax and duty exemption privileges effective March 10, 1987. On October 5,
1987, the President, through her Executive Secretary, confirmed and approved FIRB Resolution. Senator
Maceda challenged this confirmation on the ground that it is an undue delegation of legislative power

Issue:
Whether or not the powers conferred upon the constitute undue delegation of legislative power

Ruling:
No. When E.O No. 93 (S'86) was issued, President Aquino was exercising both Executive and Legislative
powers. Thus, there was no power delegated to her, rather it was she who was delegating her power.
E.O. No. 93 (S'86), as a delegating law, was complete in itself — it set forth the policy to be carried out
and it fixed the standard to which the delegate had to conform in the performance of his functions. For
delegation to be constitutionally valid, the law must be complete in itself and must set forth sufficient
standards.
G.R. No. L-32166 October 18, 1977
People vs Maceren

Doctrine:
Administrative rules and regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that
it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes

Facts:
The respondents were charged with violating Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1 which penalizes
electro fishing in fresh water fisheries. This was promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law and the law creating the
Fisheries Commission. The municipal court quashed the complaint and held that the law does not clearly
prohibit electro fishing, hence the executive and judicial departments cannot consider the same. On
appeal, the CFI affirmed the dismissal. Hence, this appeal to the SC.

Issue:
Whether or not the administrative order penalizing electro fishing is valid.

Ruling:
NO. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded
their authority in issuing the administrative order. The old Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit
electro fishing. As electro fishing is not banned under that law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it.

All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and
that it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes. Administrative regulations adopted
under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the
law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations,
of course, the law itself cannot be extended. The power cannot be extended to amending or expanding
the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.
G.R. No. 151908 August 12, 2003
Smart Communications, Inc. vs. NTC

Doctrine:
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not determine a controversy involving
a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal

Facts:
Isla Communications Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the National
Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Joseph A. Santiago, Deputy Commissioner Aurelio M.
Umali and Deputy Commissioner Nestor C. Dacanay, an action for declaration of nullity of NTC
Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 (the Billing Circular). Petitioners allege that the NTC has no
jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction
belongs to the Department of Trade and Industry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the
Billing Circular is unreasonable, oppressive, confiscatory and violative of the constitution. Hence, they
prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio.

Issue:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction of the case

Ruling:
Yes. The issuance by the NTC of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its Memorandum dated
October 6, 2000 was pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. As such, petitioners were
justified in invoking the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and
validity of the said issuances. What is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation
issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular
courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of
rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty,
international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in
the courts, including the regional trial courts. This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes
the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political
departments.
G.R. No. L-26971 April 11, 1972
Central Bank of the Philippines vs Cloribel

Doctrine:
A petition for certiorari will NOT be entertained UNLESS the respondent has had, through a motion for
reconsideration, a chance to correct the error imputed to him

Facts:
Bangko Filipino changed its policy by compounding and paying the interest on its savings deposits, at the
maximum rate fixed by the Monetary Board, from the quarterly to the monthly basis, and by paying, in
advance, the maximum rate of interest on time deposits. The Monetary Board approved Resolution No.
1566, directing the Banco Filipino to comply strictly with Central Bank Circular No. 222.

Banco Filipino filed with the CFI of Manila a case against CB and the Monetary Board. The wish to annul
Central Bank’s and Monetary Board’s orders and restrain the CB, its officials and/or agents from
enforcing the circulars and resolutions. Judge Cloribel issued ex parte the restraining order prayed for
and later granted the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. The CB now seeks a writ of
certiorari and prohibition to annul the order of Judge Cloribel authorizing the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction. Bangko Filipino argues that said petition should be dismissed, because of non-
exhaustion of all remedies

Issue:
Whether or not the petition is improper because the Central Bank has not exhausted all remedies in the
Court of First Instance

Ruling:
No. It is true that the CB did not seek a reconsideration of the order complained of, and that, as a
general rule, a petition for certiorari will not be entertained unless the respondent has had, through a
motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the error imputed to him. This rule is subject, however,
to exceptions, among which are the following, namely: 1) where the issue raised is one purely of law: 2)
where public interest is involved; and 3) in case of urgency. These circumstances are present in the case
at bar.
G.R. No. 95832 August 10, 1992
Peralta vs CSC

Doctrine:
When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it
merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative interpretation of the law is at best advisory,
for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.

Facts:
Pursuant to Civil Service Act of 1959 which conferred upon the Commissioner of Civil Service to
prescribe, amend and enforce suitable rules and regulations for effecting the Civil Service Law. The
Commission interpreted provisions of Republic Act No. 2625 amending the Revised Administrative Code
and adopted a policy that when an employee who was on leave of absence without pay on a day before
or on a day time immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, he is also considered on leave of
absence without pay on such Saturday, Sunday or Holiday. Petitioner Peralta, affected by the said policy,
questioned the said administrative interpretation.

Issue:
Whether or not the Civil Service Commission’s interpretative construction is binding upon the courts

Ruling:
NO. Administrative construction, is not necessarily binding upon the courts. Action of an administrative
agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, or abuse of
power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the
spirit of a legislative enactment. When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or
issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative
interpretation of the law is at best advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law
means.
G.R. No. L-76185. March 30, 1988.
WMWU vs BLR

Doctrine:
Administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they
are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law and are entitled to great respect

Facts:
PACIWU files a petition for certification election and WMWU filed a motion to dismiss said application.
To resolve the issue of the union representation the parties have agreed to the holding of a consent
election among the rank and file employees. It is clearly understood that the certified union in the said
projected election shall respect and administer the existing CBA until it expires on July 31, 1986.
Result of Consent Election: PACIWU – 94 and WMWU – 193;

Thereafter, on June 5, 1986, PACIWU filed a petition for certification election which was followed by the
petition for the same purposes by Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Warren Mfg. Corp.-Alliance of
Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations (ANGLO). Med-Arbiter, Ministry of Labor and Employment
ordered the holding of a certification election within 20 days.

Issue:
Whether the Certification Election should be granted.

Ruling:
Yes. The Med-Arbiter found that a sufficient number of employees signified their consent to the filing of
the petition and 107 employees authorized intervenor to file a motion for intervention. Otherwise
stated, he found that the petition and intervention were supported by more than 30% of the members
of the bargaining unit.

It is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by
administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law
and are entitled to great respect
G.R. No. 96681 December 2, 1991
Carino vs CHR

Doctrine:
The power to investigate does not carry with it the power to adjudicate

Facts:
Manila public school teachers association (MPSTA) and alliance of concerned teachers (ACT) undertook
what they described as “mass concerted actions” to dramatize and highlight their plight resulting from
the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been bought
to the latter’s attention. As a result of the said action, the DECS secretary dismissed from the service one
of the private respondents and the other nine were suspended.

Issue:
Whether or not the CHR can try and decide cases as court of justice

Ruling:
No. Court declared that CHR has no jurisdiction on adjudicatory power over certain specific type of cases
like alleged human rights violation involving civil or political rights. The most that may be conceded to
the CHR in the way of adjudication power is that it may investigate for instance receive evidence and
make findings of facts as regard claimed human rights violation involving civil and political rights.
G.R. Nos. 92319-20 October 2, 1990
Cojuangco vs PCGG

Doctrine:
Primary jurisdiction means that courts cannot and will not determine a controversy involving a question
which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal

Facts:
President Aquino directed the Solicitor General to prosecute all persons involved in the misuse of
coconut levy funds. The Solicitor General created a task force to investigate anomalous use of coconut
levy funds. The PCGG then was created. It was charged with the task of assisting the President not only
in the recovery of illgotten wealth or unexplained wealth accumulated by the former President but also
in the investigation of such cases of graft and corruption. Petitioner alleges that the PCGG may not
conduct a preliminary investigation of the complaints filed by the Solicitor General without violating
petitioner's rights to due process and equal protection of the law.

Issue:
WON the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) has the power to conduct a preliminary
investigation

Ruling:
No. It is the Ombudsman, who as an independent constitutional officer has primary jurisdiction over
cases of this nature, to conduct such preliminary investigation and take appropriate action. The PCGG
only exercises investigatory powers. The general power of investigation vested in the PCGG may be
divided into two stages: Fact finding and Preliminary investigation. It is in such instances that we say one
cannot be "a prosecutor and judge at the same time." Having gathered the evidence and filed the
complaint as a law enforcer, he cannot be expected to handle with impartiality the preliminary
investigation of his own complaint
G.R. No. 77372 April 29, 1988
Lupancgo vs CA

Doctrine:
Administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and
regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the
end view

Facts:
PRC issued resolution no. 105 “that no examinee shall attend any review class, briefing, conference, or
the like conducted by or shall receive any handouts, review material or any tip from school or any
review center during the three days immediately preceding every examination day including the
examination day.

Issue:
Whether or not the resolution no. 105 is valid.

Ruling:
The court rule in favor of petitioner. Its is an axiom of administrative law administrative authorities
should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules
and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the end view. If shown to bear no
reasonable relation to the purpose for which they are authorized to be issued, then they must be held
invalid.
G.R. No. L-62082 February 26, 1992
PNB vs Florendo

Doctrine:
The special rules of procedures applicable under the present laws to such cases shall continue to be
applied, unless amended by law or by rules of court promulgated by the Supreme Court

Facts:
Plaintiffs are tenants of four (4) parcels of land whose previous owner Ricardo Valeroso who mortgaged
the same to the PNB. Later it was bought by spouses Viloria

PNB requested to foreclose the mortgage after failure to pay amortization. The land was sold to auction
with bank as highest bidder. But the lands were already under the Land Reform Program of the
government. Violoria then filed a complaint for nullity of the foreclosure. The complaint was amended
but was opposed by PNG as there was no proper notice of hearing as required by the Uniform Car
procedures. But the same was still admitted by Judge Florendo

Issue:
whether or not the respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction

Ruling:
Yes. The order of the respondent Judge admitting the First Amended Complaint including therein said
questioned Lot 787-B-2-A which is a residential lot not falling within the ambit of PD 27, hence, beyond
CAR's jurisdiction, was issued in excess of jurisdiction. The term excess of jurisdiction signifies that the
court, board or officer has jurisdiction over a case but oversteps such jurisdiction while acting thereon.
G.R. No. L-26534
Villegas vs Subido

Doctrine:
Nothing is better settled in the law than that a public official exercises power not rights. The
government itself is merely an agency through which the will of the state is expressed and enforced.

Facts:
Then Metro Manila Mayor Antonio Villegas approved the appointing of 91 women street sweepers in
the City of Manila. But the appointing would still have to be approved by the Office of Civil Service
Commission under Commissioner Abelardo Subido. Subido refused to extend approval to such
appointments on the ground that appointing women to manual labor is against Memorandum Circular
No. 18 series of 1964. Subido pointed out that putting women workers with men workers outside under
the heat of the sun and placing them under manual labor exposes them to contempt and ridicule and
constitutes a violation of the traditional dignity and respect accorded Filipino womanhood. Villegas
however pointed out that the said Memo has already been set aside by the Office of the President
hence the same is no longer in effect.

Issue:
Whether or not the appointment of said women workers should be confirmed by the Civil Service
Commissioner.

Ruling:
Yes. The basis of Subido was not on any law or rule but simply on his own concept of what policy to
pursue, in this instance in accordance with his own personal predilection. Here he appeared to be
unalterably convinced that to allow women laborers to work outside their offices as street sweepers
would run counter to Filipino tradition. A public official must be able to point to a particular provision of
law or rule justifying the exercise of a challenged authority.

Nothing is better settled in the law than that a public official exercises power, not rights. The
government itself is merely an agency through which the will of the state is expressed and enforced. Its
officers therefore are likewise agents entrusted with the responsibility of discharging its functions. As
such there is no presumption that they are empowered to act. There must be a delegation of such
authority, either express or implied. In the absence of a valid grant, they are devoid of power.
GR Nos. L-48907 & 49035,
Tajonera vs Lamaroza

Doctrine:
While a day in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, it is otherwise in administrative
proceedings since they are based on different principles.

Facts:
For alleged unfair labor practices, six labor cases were consolidated. Sometime later, OIC Leogardo of
Regional Office 4 issued an order to reinstate the respondents to their former positions with full
backwages. The issue of illegal deduction were reffered to the Ministry of Labor

Petitioners appealed the said order. But it was denied by Secretary Inciong and ordered a writ of
execution. While the writ was being served, they executed a compromise agreement admitting their
liability. However instead of complying with the agreement, petitioners appealed to the OP. But the OP
affirmed the decision of Inciong. They moved for a reconsideration on the grounds of denial of due
process but it was still denied.

Issue
Whether or not they were denied due process in the administrative proceedings

Ruling:
No. They had ample opportunity to present their evidence not only during the conciliation stage but also
before then Deputy Minister Inciong who called for conference to give petitioners another fair chance to
ventilate their grievances and to submit their defenses, if there are any. While a day in court is a matter
of right in judicial proceedings, it is otherwise in administrative proceedings since they are based on
different principles.
G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000
Secretary of Justice vs Lantion

Doctrine:
Investigatory or inquisitorial powers include the power of an administrative body to inspect the records
and premises, and investigate the activities of persons or entities coming under its jurisdiction

Facts: A request for extradition was filed against Mark Jimenez for alleged violation of many criminal
laws in the US. The DOJ formed a panel of lawyers to review and study the request. Pending the review,
MJ requested copies of all documents and papers relative to the request that the proceedings be
suspended for the meantime. The DOJ denied the request, hence MJ filed a petition for mandamus
before the RTC of Manila to compel the DOJ to furnish him the documents. The RTC of Manila issued a
TRO to maintain a status quo ante, hence the DOJ filed an appeal to the SC.

Issue:
Whether or not MJ is entitled to notice and hearing during the preliminary or the evaluation stage of the
extradition treaty against him.

Ruling:
No. Private respondent is bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition process.

An extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all
the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The human rights of person, Filipino or
foreigner, and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over
treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the government to the individual deserve
preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another
state.
G.R. No. 57475
Republic vs Neri

Doctrine:
established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies have
upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment

Facts:
Lamorena filed a registration the 81-hectare land. Sometime later Lamorena executed a sale with the
right to repurchase in favor of Caburian. Later on, the court ruled that it was a public land. Sometime
later, Caburian exercising ownership demanded share of the land's produce. Those who failed were
ordered by Caburian to vacate the premises. The tenants then petitioned the president to intervene.
After investigation, it was found that the land was being acquired by the tenants thorough homestead,
Caburian by sales and Lamorenas by free patent

Director of lands considered the homsetead of Neri and rejected the free patent. Lamorenas then
appealed to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Secretary but did not rule in their favor. Thus, they
elevated the case to the Office of the President which granted the free patents and the decision became
final and executory. Caburian challenged the decision. Meanwhile, pursuant to the decision of the CA
that land being part of the public domain, the Solicitor General filed registration of the land on the
ground of res judicata.

Issue:
Whether or not Res Judicata is applicable in the case

Ruling.
No. It is an established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of administrative
agencies have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of
the doctrine of res judicata. However, res judicata also may not apply with respect to the decision of the
Office of the President. The inapplicability of the doctrine of res judicata in effect allowed the courts
below the discretion to pass upon the issue of the private respondents.
G.R. No. 112050 June 15, 1994
Felizardo vs. CA

Doctrine:
the writ of certiorari is available only where the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions
has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion

Facts:
Nemesio Jose as owner-lessor of a house and lot located in Bajac-bajac, Quezon City tiled an ejectment
case against lessee Quintin Pelizardo in the MTC of Olongapo city. Felizardo, in his answer, claimed that
Jose’s allegations were false and were only meant to evade the requirements of PD 1508 for barangay
conciliation The MTC ruled that it could act on the complaint field by Jose and later on rendered a
decision in favor of Jose Pelizardo thus filed a petition for certiorari questioning the jurisdiction of the
MTC

Issue:
Whether the MTC had jurisdiction

Ruling:
It is settled that the writ of certiorari is available only where the tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion

There is no doubt that the Municipal Trial Court of Olongapo City had jurisdiction over the subject-
matter of the case lodged by the private respondent and over the person of the petitioner, who had
filed his answer to the complaint.
211 SCRA 384
Rosario vs. Court of Appeals

Doctrine:
Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction
of the court.

Facts:
Alejandro Cruz, who was the original lessee of the area, subsequently designated as Lots 3-A and 3-C,
constructed a residential house thereon. In the same year, he sublet his house on Lot 3-A to the
petitioner. Availing of the City's "Land for the Landless Program," both parties filed with the City
Tenants' Security Commission, their applications to purchase Lots 3-A and 3-C. On June 24, 1977, Lot 3-A
was awarded to Rosario while Lot 3-C was awarded to Cruz.

Not satisfied with just Lot 3-C, Cruz opposed the award of Lot 3-A to Rosario. After conducting an
investigation, the City Tenants' Security Commission issued a Resolution No. 018-78 dated December 8,
1978 revoking the award of Lot 3-A to Rosario and awarding it to Cruz.

Petitioner filed an "action to quiet title" in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Regional Trial Court
dismissed because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies

Issue:
whether or not being the sublessee and "actual occupant" of Lot 3-A, he has the preferential right to buy
said lot

Ruling:
Yes. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals skirted that legal issue and simply dismissed Rosario's
petition for review of the Resolution of the City Tenants' Security Commission on the grounds of non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies and tardiness. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not,
however, necessarily fatal to an action. To dismiss petitioner's appeal on a procedural ground would not
serve the ends of justice.
G.R. No. 163109, January 22, 2014
Ejera vs Vergara

Doctrine:
Exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the principle that the administrative agency, if afforded a
complete chance to pass upon the matter again, will decide the same correctly

Facts:
The petitioner held the position of Agricultural Center Chief I in the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist
in Negros Oriental. Her position was equivalent to the position of Senior Agriculturist, the next-in-rank
to the position of Supervising Agriculturist. Upon the retirement of the Supervising Agriculturist, she
applied for that position, but one Daisy Kirit was eventually appointed.

She filed a protest against the appointment of Kirit before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional
Office in Cebu City, but that said office dismissed her protest. The Central CSC Office affirmed the
dismissal on July 25, 2001 under its Resolution No. 011253. Meanwhile, on September 11, 2000,
respondent Provincial Agriculturist Beau Henry L. Merto issued Office Order No. 008. The petitioner was
one of the personnel re-assigned under the order. She was designated therein as the team leader in
Lake Balanan and Sandulot in the Municipality of Siaton. When she refused to obey the office order,
Merto ordered her to explain in writing why no administrative disciplinary action should be taken
against her. After she did not submit her explanation, she was summoned to a conference. She and her
counsel attended, but later walked out.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s non-exhaustion of her available administrative remedies was fatal to her
cause.

Ruling:
Yes. The non-exhaustion of available administrative remedies is fatal to the resort to judicial action.

The rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the principle that the
administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter again, will decide the
same correctly. The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and speedier solutions
to disputes. The courts for reasons of law, comity and convenience will not entertain a case unless the
available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been
given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.
G.R. No. 138381. November 10, 2004
GSIS vs COA

Doctrine:
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction would ordinarily preclude the court from resolving a matter, which calls
for a ruling to be first made by the Board

Facts:
The Court promulgated a decision ordering the refund of amounts representing fringe benefits granted
to GSIS employees and affirming the disallowance in excess of that approved by the COA which was later
qdeducted by GSIS.

The GSIS retirees then filed a motion asking the court whether the GSIS may lawful deduct any amount
from their retirement benefits in light of Republic Act No. 8291. The court ruled that the law provides
the Exemption of Retirement benefits from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. Following jurisprudence,
retirement pay accruing to a public officer may not be withheld and applied to his indebtedness to the
government. Hence, the GISIS employees retained their benefits including those which were properly
disallowed by the COA.

Issue:
Whether or not the Board had jurisdiction over respondents demands

Ruling:
Yes. While GSIS cannot directly proceed against its employees’ retirement benefits, it can nonetheless
seek restoration of the amounts by means of a proper court action for its recovery. There is no
prohibition against enforcing a final monetary judgment against its employees’ other assets and
properties. This is only fair and consistent with basic principles of due process.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction would ordinarily preclude us from resolving the matter, which calls
for a ruling to be first made by the Board. It is the latter that is vested by law with exclusive and original
jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising under RA 8291, as well as other matters related thereto
G.R. No. 176707 February 17, 2010

Obiasca vs. Basallote

Doctrine:
An appointment shall take effect immediately upon issue by the appointing authority if the appointee
assumes his duties immediately and shall remain effective until it is disapproved by the CSC

Facts:
City Schools Division Superintendent appointed respondent to Admin Officer II. Later, the Oyardo, new
CSDS, advised the school principal Gonzales that the papers of applications for the position of Admin
Officer II, including those of respondent, were being returned and that a school ranking should be
accomplished and submitted for review. Respondent was then advised by HRMO Diaz that her
appointment could not be forwarded to CSC for her failure to submit the position description form. She
tried to obtain Gonzales’ signature but the latter refused despite repeated requests. When she informed
Oyard, she was advised to return to her former teaching position of Teacher I.

Meanwhile, Oyardo appointed petitioner to same position of Admin Officer II which appointment was
sent and attested by the CSC. After learning this, respondent filed a complaint with Ombudsman against
Oyardo, Gonzales and Diaz. Oyardo and Gonzales was held administratively liable for withholding
information from respondent on the status of her appointment, and suspended them from the service
for three months.

Respondent also filed a protest with CSC Regional Office but was dismissed. CSC granted her appeal,
approved her appointment and recalled petitioner’s appointment.

Issue:
Whether or note the deliberate failure of the appointing authority to submit respondent’s appointment
paper to the CSC made her appointment ineffective and incomplete.

Ruling:
No. The law on the matter is clear. When the law is clear, there is no other recourse but to apple it
regardless of its perceived harshness. Nonetheless, the law should never be applied or interpreted to
oppress one in order to favor another. As a court of law and of justice, this Court has the duty to
adjudicate conflicting claims based not only on the cold provision of the law but also according to the
higher principles of right and justice
G.R. No. 158253 March 2, 2007
Republic vs Lacap

Doctrine:
Before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him
by administrative processes.

Facts:
District Engineer Of Pampanga issued an invitation to bid where Lacap and two other contractors were
pre-qualified. Lacap won the bid for concreting of a certain baranggay, and thereafter undertook the
works and purchased materials. Later, Office of the Dist. Eng conducted final investigation of end
product and found it 100% completed according to specs. Lacap thereafter sought the payment of the
DPWH.

DPWH withheld payment. Sometime later DPWH Legal Dept, through Dir III Cesar Mejia recommended
that payment be made to Lacap. Despite such recommendation, no payment was issued. Respondent
filed the complaint. Later, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the
complaint states no cause of action and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the nature of the action
since respondent did not appeal to the COA the decision of the District Auditor to disapprove the claim.

The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. The OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied.
Sometime later, the OSG filed its Answer invoking the defenses of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies and the doctrine of non-suability of the State. In trial, The RTC ordered DPWH to pay Lacap. CA
lowered the interest.

Issue:
Whether or not a contractor with an expired license at the time of execution of its contract is entitled to
be paid for completed projects

Ruling:
Yes. The petitioner must be required to pay the contract price since it has accepted the completed
project and enjoyed the benefits thereof. To allow petitioner to acquire the finished project at no cost
would undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the petitioner to the prejudice of respondent. Such
unjust enrichment is not allowed by law
G.R. No. 180388 January 18, 2011
Vigilar vs Aquino

Doctrine:
When issue does not require technical knowledge and experience, exhaustion of Administrative
remedies does not apply.

Facts:
Angelito M. Twano, petitioner, the OIC District Engr. of DPWH 2nd Engineering District of Pampanga
sent an Invitation to bid to respondent Arnulfo D. Aquino. The bidding was for the construction of a dike
by bull-dozing a part of the Porac River.

The project was awarded to respondent and a "Contract Agreement" has been executed. In 1992, the
project was completed. Aquino, however claimed that there was still due to him, but petitioners refused
to pay. He then, filed a complaint fort the collection of sum of money. Petitioners has the following
contentions, that the Complaint was a suit against the State, respondent failed to exhaust administrative
remedies, Contract of Agreement was void for violating PD 1445.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in not dismissing the complaint

Ruling:
NO. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and doctrine of primary jurisdiction are not
ironclad rules. There are numerous exceptions, and the pertinent ones in this case are 1.) Where there is
unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; 2.) Where the
question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by courts of justice.

Also, the issues of the present case involve the validity and enforceability of the Contract of Agreement
entered into by the parties which are questions of law and clearly beyond the expertise of COA. The
Final Decision on the matter rests not with them but with the courts of justice. Exhaustion of
Administrative remedies does not apply, because nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be
done. The issue does not require technical knowledge and experience but one that would involve the
interpretation and application of law