This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-01-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies resulted in the complaint having no cause of action.[47] Hence, the RTC and the CA correctly dismissed the case. | |||||
|
2014-01-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The defense of non-exhaustion of her administrative remedies raised by Paltinca as the non-defaulting defendant inured to the benefit of the respondents who had been declared in default. For one, there was a common cause of action against the respondents and Paltinca.[52] The non-exhaustion was fatal to such common cause of action.[53] Moreover, such benefit inuring to the respondents despite default was predicated on Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit: Section 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefore, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court. | |||||
|
2013-08-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Clearly, petitioners have all the remedies available to them at the administrative level but they failed to exhaust the same and instead, immediately sought judicial intervention. Otherwise stated, the auditing process has just begun but the petitioners already thwarted the same by immediately filing a Petition for Prohibition. In Fua, Jr. v. COA,[30] citing Sison v. Tablang,[31] this Court declared that the general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail himself of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to the court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation. Also, in The Special Audit Team, Commission on Audit v. Court of Appeals and Government Service Insurance System,[32] this Court has extensively pronounced that:If resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one's cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case. x x x. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, by immediately filing the present petition for certiorari, petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him. The hornbook doctrine, reiterated in Joseph Peter Sison, et al. v. Rogelio Tablang, etc.,[7] is as follows: The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail himself of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to the court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation. | |||||