[Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 305 SCRA 397 (1999)]--ADMINISTRATIVE LAW—Doctrine of Res Judicata in Administrative LawDecisions and orders of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of res judicata. (NAFTU v. Mainit Lumber Devt. Co. 192 SCRA 598)Doctrine of Prior Resortor Doctrine of Primary Administrative JurisdictionIn Industrial Enterprises v. CA (184 SCRA 426), the SC ruled that it may occur that the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case concurrently with an administrative agency. However, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills andknowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical mattersor intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in administrative proceedings.Doctrine of Finality of Administrative ActionNo resort to the courts will be allowed unless the administrative action has been completed and there is nothing left to be done in the administrative structure.Doctrine of Subordinate LegislationThe power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations on matters of their own specialization.
Political law and Public International law8Doctrine of Legislative Approval by Re-EnactmentThe rules and regulations promulgated by the proper administrative agency implementing the law are deemed confirmed and approved by the Legislature when said law was re-enacted by later legislation or through codification. The Legislature is presumed to have full knowledge of the contents of the regulations then at the time of the re-enactment.Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts One purports to be finding of fact but is so involved with and dependent upon a question of law as to be in substance and effect a decision on the latter, courts will review the entire case including the latter.Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative RemediesA rule that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him.(Union Bank v. CA, 290 SCRA 198)This doctrine is disregarded when: 1.there is violation of due process;2.the issue involved is purely a legal question;3.there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned;4.the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;5.there is irreparable injury;6.the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter;7.to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable8.it would amount to nullification of a claim;9.the subject matter is private land in land case proceeding;10.the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; and,11.there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention[Paat vs. CA, 266 SCRA 167, (1997)]