8/9/2019 Samar Electric Coop vs. Seludo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/samar-electric-coop-vs-seludo 1/2

04. SAMAR ELECTRONICCOOP VS SELUDO

Doctrine of Primary Jri!"iction

• the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where aclaim is originallycognizable in the courtsand comes into playwhenever enforcement ofthe claim requires theresolution of issues which,under a regulatory

scheme, has been placedwithin the specialcompetence of anadministrative agency.

• In such a case, the court inwhich the claim is soughtto be enforced maysuspend the judicialprocess pending referral of

such issues to theadministrative body for itsview or, if the partieswould not be unfairlydisadvantaged, dismiss thecase without prejudice.

Doctrine of E#$a!tion ofA"mini!trati%e Reme"ie!

• Corollary to the doctrine ofprimary jurisdiction istheprinciple of exhaustionof administrative remedies

• before a party is allowed toseek the intervention ofthe courts, it is aprecondition that he availhimself of alladministrative processesa!orded him.

• "ence, if a remedy withinthe administrativemachinery can be resortedto by giving theadministrative o#cer everyopportunity to decide on amatter that comes within

his jurisdiction, then suchremedy must be exhausted$rst before the court%spower of judicial reviewcan be sought.

•  &he premature resort tothe court is fatal to one%scause of action.

•

'ccordingly, absent any$nding of waiver orestoppel, the case may bedismissed for lack of causeof action.

•  &he availment ofadministrative remedyentails lesser expensesand provides for a speedier

disposition of controversiesand allows theadministrative agencyample time to correct itsmistake.

E&CEPTIONS

8/9/2019 Samar Electric Coop vs. Seludo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/samar-electric-coop-vs-seludo 2/2

(a) where there is estoppel onthe part of the party invokingthe doctrine*

(b) where the challenged

administrative act is patentlyillegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction*

(c) where there is unreasonabledelay or o#cial inaction that willirretrievably prejudice thecomplainant*

(d) where the amount involved is

relatively so small as to makethe rule impractical andoppressive*

 (e) where the question involvedis purely legal and will ultimatelyhave to be decided by the courtsof justice*

(f) where judicial intervention is

urgent*

(g) where the application of thedoctrine may cause great andirreparable damage*

 (h) where the controverted actsviolate due process*

 (i) where the issue of non+

exhaustion of administrativeremedies has been renderedmoot*

 (j) where there is no other plain,speedy and adequate remedy*

 (k) where strong public interestis involved* and

(l) in quo warrantoproceedings.-

(espondent, however, failed toshow that the instant case fallsunder any of the above+enumerated exceptions.)

('lso, merely alleging grave

abuse of discretion is notenough. It must be proved)