The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the courts must allow the administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence.<sup>[1]

x x x x</sup>

The exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, as enumerated in Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. Court of Appeals ^[28] 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;
(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, and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant;
(12) where no administrative review is provided by law;
(13) where the rule of qualified political agency applies and
(14) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot.