6. Primary Jurisdiction

H. Primary Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in an administrative body of special competence. (See also Sta. Ana v. Carpo, GR No. 164340, 2008).

Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. (Paloma v. Mora, G.R. No. 157783, 2005).

The practice is to refer specialized disputes to administrative agencies of specialized competence and the courts will not determine a controversy prior to the resolution of the question by the administrative tribunal. (Fabia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132684, 2002).

General Rule: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction. [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)]

The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court. [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)]

Exceptions:

• Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine,
• Where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction,
• Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant,
• Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant,
• Where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts,
• Where judicial intervention is urgent,
• When its application may cause great and irreparable damage,
• Where the controverted acts violate due process,
• When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot,
• When there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy,
• When strong public interest is involved, and
• In quo warranto proceedings. [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)]

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in which courts cannot determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal. [International Service v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, G.R. No. 209271 (2015)]

General Rule: The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies provides that if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be sought.

Exception: When the proceeding before the administrative agency is merely investigative, as opposed to adjudicative. (Republic v. Transunion Corp, G.R. No. 191590, 2014).

Regarding Offenses Falling Within the Original Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

Prosecutors of offenses falling within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan shall, after their conclusion, transmit the records and their resolutions to the Ombudsman or his deputy for appropriate action.

Moreover, the prosecutor cannot dismiss the complaint without the prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his deputy, nor can the prosecutor file an information with the Sandiganbayan without being deputized by, and without prior written authority of, the Ombudsman or his deputy.

The Ombudsman is clothed with the authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the SB, but also those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Section 15 of R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) does not make any distinction. “Any illegal act or omission of any public official” is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee. Such grant of primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the SB does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases involving public officers and employees cognizable by other courts. (Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 105965-70, 1999)

In criminal prosecutions, a reinvestigation, like an appeal, renders the entire case open for review, regardless of whether a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation was sought. The Ombudsman should not be limited in its review. It is clear from R.A. No. 6770 that the Ombudsman may motu propio conduct a reinvestigation. (Roxas v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 114944, 2002)

Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in an administrative body of special competence. (See also Sta. Ana v. Carpo, GR No. 164340, 2008).

Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. (Paloma v. Mora, G.R. No. 157783, 2005).

The practice is to refer specialized disputes to administrative agencies of specialized competence and the courts will not determine a controversy prior to the resolution of the question by the administrative tribunal. (Fabia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132684, 2002).