Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GUALBERTO CASTRO v. SECRETARY RICARDO GLORIA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 189649 2015-04-20	ADORACION CAROLINO v. GEN. GENEROSO SENGA PERALTA, J.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review.[34] However, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies need not be adhered to when the question is purely legal.[35] This is because issues of law cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer.[36] Appeal to the administrative officer would only be an exercise in futility.[37] Here, the question raised is purely legal, i.e., what law should be applied in the payment of retirement benefits of petitioner's husband. Thus, there was no need to exhaust all administrative remedies before a judicial relief can be sought.
	GR NO. 162321 2007-06-29	PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Castro v. Gloria,[4] we held that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts for review. It is settled that non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint. The rationale behind this principle is for reasons of practical considerations, comity and convenience.
	GR NO. 159654 2006-02-28	NICANOR T. SANTOS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SECRETARY TINGA, J.
As a general rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts of justice, he is expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress.[18] In the instant case, it is beyond dispute that petitioner failed to resort to proper administrative recourse in resisting the Notice of Coverage issued by respondent MARO. Unsuccessful in its attempt to oppose the Notice of Coverage when it lodged its protest with the incorrect administrative offices, petitioner resorted to a judicial remedy. The petition for mandamus, which it filed, however, was correctly denied by the Court of Appeals. Truly, a petition for mandamus is premature if there are administrative remedies available to petitioner.[19]
	GR No. 137862 2004-11-11	ALFREDO ESTRADA v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that resort be first made with the administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to a court of justice for review.[20] If a remedy within the administrative machinery is still available, with a procedure pursuant to law for an administrative officer to decide the controversy, a party should first exhaust such remedy before going to court. A premature invocation of a court's intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible on such ground.[21]