B) NO CAUSE OF ACTION:
 
	The Supreme Court in a long line of cases has consistently held 


Page 6


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 to him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on matters that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before judicial review can be sought. The premature invocation of the court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action (National Development Company vs. Hervilla, 151 SCRA 520 [1987] Atlas Consolidated Mining Company vs. Mendoza, 2 SCRA 1064 [1961]; Aboitiz vs. Collector of Customs, 83 SCRA 265 [1978]; Pestenas v. Dyogi, supra.).

	The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical reasons for the principle. The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and more speedy solution to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts – for reasons of law, comity and convenience – will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct errors committed in the administrative forum (Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 198 [ 1998]; Paat, etc., vs CA, et. al., 266 SCRA 167 [1997]).