The general rule is that all available administrative remedies must be availed of or exhausted first before resorting to judicial remedies. Thus:
…no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted. The rationale behind the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is that courts, for reasons of law, comity, and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities, who are competent to act upon the matter complained of, have been given the appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum.
(Cudia vs Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015)
However, there are exceptions to the general rule, to wit:
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 bear 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;
10. when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; and
11. when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention
