This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-07-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In this case, the doctrine does not apply because petitioners failed to demonstrate that recourse to the CHED is mandatory - or even possible - in an action such as that brought by the respondent, which is essentially one for mandamus and damages. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies admits of numerous exceptions,[14] one of which is where the issues are purely legal and well within the jurisdiction of the trial court, as in the present case.[15] Petitioners' liability - if any - for damages will have to be decided by the courts, since any judgment inevitably calls for the application and the interpretation of the Civil Code.[16] As such, exhaustion of administrative remedies may be dispensed with. As we held in Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology:[17] | |||||
|
2004-11-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Third, the exhaustion doctrine admits of exceptions, one of which arises when the issue is purely legal and well within the jurisdiction of the trial court.[17] Petitioner's action for damages inevitably calls for the application and the interpretation of the Civil Code, a function that falls within the jurisdiction of the courts.[18] | |||||