This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-01-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Observance of the mandate regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is a sound practice and policy. The doctrine insures an orderly procedure which favors a preliminary sifting process and withholds judicial interference until administrative process would have been allowed to duly run its course.[15] The underlying principle of the rule rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide correctly.[16] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Being thus under the control of the President, the Secretary of Justice, or, to be precise, his decision is subject to review of the former. In fine, recourse from the decision of the Secretary of Justice should be to the President, instead of the CA, under the established principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that if an appeal or remedy obtains or is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts.[6] Immediate recourse to the court would be premature and precipitate; [7] subject to defined exception, a case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action should a party fail to exhaust administrative remedies.[8] Notably, Section 1, supra, of Rule 43 includes the Office of the President in the agencies named therein, thereby accentuating the fact that appeals from rulings of department heads must first be taken to and resolved by that office before any appellate recourse may be resorted to. | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the aggrieved party is mandated to exhaust all administrative remedies available before resorting to judicial recourse. The tribunal, either judicial or quasi-judicial must be given a chance to correct the imputed errors on its act or order.[24] The rule is an element of the petitioner's right to action, and if he fails or refuses to avail himself of the same, the judiciary shall decline to interfere.[25] | |||||
|
2002-07-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| scheduled hearings, despite due notice, was at his own peril.[56] He therefore cannot validly claim that his right to due process was violated.[57] As to petitioner's claim for damages, the extant rule is that a public officer shall not be liable by way of moral and exemplary damages for acts done in the performance of official duties, unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice or gross | |||||