Laguna Catv Network vs Maraan

LAGUNA CATV NETWORK VS. MARAAN G.R. NO. 139492, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 DOCTRINE: Under Article 128 of the Labor Code, an order issued by the duly authorized representative of the

Secretary of Labor may be appealed to the latter. hus hus petitioner should have first appealed to the Secretary of Labor  instead of filin! "ith the Court of Appeals a motion for e#tension of time to file a petition for revie". Courts, for  reasons of la", comity and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available administrative administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities have been !iven an appropriate opportunity to act and correct their  alle!ed errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum. he party "ith an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative administrative procedure to obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion  before see$in! %udicial intervention in order to !ive the administrative administrative a!ency an opportunity to decide the matter  itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. he underlyin! principle of the rule rests on the presumption that the administrative a!ency, if afforded afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter "ill decide the same correctly. correctly. FACTS: "elve &12' employees, herein private respondents, filed "ith the (epartment of Labor and )mployment

*e!ional +ffice &(+L) *e!ion -', separate complaints for underpayment of "a!es and nonpayment of other  employee benefits, a!ainst their employer, petitioner La!una CA-. (+L) conducted an inspection in the premises of petitioner and found that the latter violated the la"s on payment of "a!es and other benefits. After a summary investi!ation, (+L) (+L) issued an +rder directin! petitioner to pay the concerned employees, but instead of complyin! "ith the directive it filed a motion for reconsideration. /ecause of petitioner0s failure to comply "ith the +rder, respondent *e!ional (irector Ale# araan issued a "rit of e#ecution resultin! to the !arnishment of petitioner0s L33 van and ban$ deposits. 4etitioner filed a motion to 5uash the "rit, notice of levy and sale on e#ecution and !arnishment, alle!in! that the "rit "as premature. *espondent denied the motion, promptin! petitioner to file "ith the Court of Appeals a motion for e#tension of time to file a petition for revie". he Court of Appeals denied said motion and dismissed the case on the !round of failure to e#haust administrative remedies. ISSUE: 6+7 petitioner failed to e#haust available administrative administrative remedies. HELD: YES. Under Article 128 of the Labor Code, an order issued by the duly authorized representative of the

Secretary of Labor may be appealed to the latter. hus hus petitioner should have first appealed to the Secretary of Labor  instead of filin! "ith the Court of Appeals a motion for e#tension of time to file a petition for revie". Courts, for  reasons of la", comity and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available administrative administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities have been !iven an appropriate opportunity to act and correct their  alle!ed errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum. he party "ith an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative administrative procedure to obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion  before see$in! %udicial intervention in order to !ive the administrative administrative a!ency an opportunity to decide the matter  itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. he underlyin! principle of the rule rests on the presumption that the administrative a!ency, if afforded afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter "ill decide the same correctly correctly.. herefore herefore,, petitione petitionerr should should have completed completed the administra administrative tive process by appealin! appealin! the 5uestioned +rders to the Secretary of Labor. he Supreme Court has allo"ed certain e#ceptions e#ceptions to the doctrine doctrine of e#haustio e#haustion n of administr administrative ative remedies, such as 1' "hen there is a violation of due process9 2' "hen the issue involved is a purely le!al 5uestion9 ' "hen the administrative action is patently ille!al amountin! to lac$ or e#cess of %urisdiction9 :' "hen there is estoppel on the part of the administrative a!ency concerned9 ;' "hen there is irreparable in%ury9