This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies mandates that whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted.[33] This rule is based on the practical principle that the administrative agency should be given a chance to correct its error,[34] and that relief first sought from a superior administrative agency could render court action unnecessary.[35] | |||||
|
2003-08-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the filing of a petition for certiorari.[12] A petitioner must exhaust all other available remedies before resorting to certiorari. An exception to this rule arises if the petitioner raises purely legal issues. However, contrary to PILTEL's view, the issues raised in its petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals were mainly factual in nature. Since PILTEL disputes NTC's factual findings and seeks a re-evaluation of the facts and evidence on record, the issues PILTEL raised are not proper subjects for certiorari. Evidentiary matters or matters of fact raised in the NTC are not proper grounds in the proceedings for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.[13] The sole office of a writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction and does not include a review of the NTC's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings.[14] | |||||