Time and again, I have emphasized to you, my readers, the importance of following the procedures in the appeal of cases. As I repeatedly said, no matter how meritorious your case may be, if the incorrect procedure is followed, your case will not merit any favorable action. Rather, it will be dismissed outright, foreclosing any relief that may be granted to you.

What I write about today concerns immigration cases. So this may be a good read for our foreigner friends in the country. Take note of the proper process to follow so that any issue you may have with the immigration laws may be heard by the proper authorities.

A case was filed with the Bureau of Immigration against the petitioner, a foreign national. His wife asked that he be declared an undesirable alien. The Bureau declared him as such. He assailed this order by appealing to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, dismissed his case outright. The ground, non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Still aggrieved, the petitioner brought the matter up to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

The Highest Court had this to say: “Even if the Court disregards the aforesaid procedural mishap committed by Nagel, a perusal of the records would readily show that the CA did not commit reversible error in dismissing Nagel’s Rule 43 Petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.”

In Magalang v. PAGCOR, the Court, through Justice Martin S. Villarama Jr., had the opportunity to reiterate the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, as follows:

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if a 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 a 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.

Verily, noncompliance with this doctrine leads to the dismissal of a case filed before the judicial courts.

In Magalang v. PAGCOR, the Court, through Justice Martin S. Villarama Jr., had the opportunity to reiterate the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

In this case, it is undisputed that Nagel filed a Rule 43 Petition for Review to challenge the ruling of the BOC-BI. In this regard, case law instructs that the following remedies are available to assail an adverse ruling of the BOC-Bl, namely: (a) an appeal directly to the CA via Rule 43 provided that he shows that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine are attendant (b) absent any of the exceptions, he may exhaust the available administrative remedies within the executive machinery, namely, an appeal to the Secretary of Justice and then to the Office of the President (OP), and thereafter, appeal the OP’s decisions via Rule 43; or (c) he may directly resort to certiorari before the CA strictly on jurisdictional grounds, provided that he explains why any of the aforementioned remedies cannot be taken as adequate and speedy.

Thus, it was incumbent upon Nagel to prove that any of the acceptable exceptions to the doctrine of the exhaustion of administrative remedies are present. To be sure, these exceptions are: (1) when there is a violation of due process; (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question; (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned; (5) when there is irreparable injury; (6) when 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) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable; (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim; (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings; (I0) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant; ( 12) when no administrative review is provided by law; (13) when the rule of qualified political agency applies; and (14) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot. (To be continued)