Doctrine of primary jurisdiction (Primary administrative jurisdiction)

Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction
of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and
services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact
(BF Homes, Inc. v. Manila Electric Company, December 6,2010).
The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising
its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or
some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court (Nestle
Philippines Inc. v. Uniwide Sales, Inc, October 20, 2010).
Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction (continuity of jurisdiction)
GR: Once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has
done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction.
XPNS:
1. Where a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the continued exercise of
jurisdiction;
2. Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is repealed by a subsequent law;
3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as where the court fails to
provide counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently
waive his constitutional right;
4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended
to operate as to actions pending before its enactment;
5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or
declared void;