This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In this regard, it must be remembered though that this Court's ruling in Dwikarna v. Domingo did not abandon the doctrine laid down in BOC v. Dela Rosa. The exception remains. Dwikarna merely reiterated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction when this Court ruled that if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration, he can move for its reconsideration and if his motion is denied, then he can elevate his case by way of a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, utmost caution must be exercised in availing of the exception laid down in BOC v. Dela Rosa in order to avoid trampling on the time-honored doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services in determining technical and intricate matters of fact.[48] In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[49] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Said findings were also made by the CA as its basis in affirming the decision of the DAR Secretary. The same is a question of fact which cannot be the subject of herein petition.[53] More importantly, the findings of the DAR are accorded not only respect but even finality by this Court, because it has acquired the necessary expertise on the matter.[54] Said findings appear to be supported by substantial evidence which is all that is required in agrarian cases.[55] Hence, this Court finds no reason to disturb said findings of the Secretary. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Section 1(f), Rule II of the DARAB likewise provides that the DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving the issue, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and emancipation patents which are registered with the Land Registration Authority. And as the Court held in Machete v. Court of Appeals,[48] the failure of agricultural tenants to pay rentals pursuant to a leasehold contract is an issue which is exclusively cognizable by the DARAB and beyond the legal competence of the RTC. | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Assuming there was even a grain of truth to the petitioners' claims regarding the legality of what are alleged to be the corporations' true purposes, we are still precluded from granting them relief. We cannot address here their concerns regarding circumvention of land reform laws, for the doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes a court from arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[31] Since primary jurisdiction over any violation of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3844 that may have been committed is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB),[32] then it is with said administrative agency that the petitioners must first plead their case. With regard to their claim that Ellice and Margo were meant to be used as mere tools for the avoidance of estate taxes, suffice it say that the legal right of a taxpayer to reduce the amount of what otherwise could be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted. [33] | |||||