DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION (Exception)

PROVINCE OF AKLAN VS JODY KING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

FACTS: The Province of Aklan and Jody King Construction entered into a contract for the design and construction of the Caticlan Port and terminal (phase 1). In the course of construction, Petitioner Aklan issued a change orders for additional works and again entered into a negotiated contract with respondent for the construction of Passenger Terminal Building (Phase 2). After the construction of Phase 1 and change orders were agreed, respondent allegedly failed to settle. Then, respondent sued petitioner to RTC for collection a sum of money. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment, Petitioner denied any unpaid balance. RTC rendered decision in favour of respondent, issued a writ execution and garnished petitioners funds deposited in different banks. Petitioner filed petition in the CA, but it was denied for its failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration and is stopped from invoking the doctrine of primary jurisdiction as it stopped from making the doctrine or primary jurisdiction as it only raised after its notice of appeal was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is stopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC and the applicability of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

RULING: Petition GRANTED. COA has primary jurisdiction over money claim and petitioner is not stopped from not raising the issue of jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings. All the proceedings and decisions of the court in violation of the doctrine rendered null and void.