within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services in determining technical and intricate matters of fact.48[48] In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.49[49]       Above all else, this Court still upholds the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. As enunciated in Republic v. Lacap:50[50]   The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes.51[51] The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.52[52]   48[48] Omictin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007, 512 SCRA 70, 82, citing Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil. 932 (1954). 49[49] Machete v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995, 250 SCRA 176, 182. 50[50] G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255. 51[51] Associate Communications and Wireless Services (ACWS), Ltd. v. Dumlao, 440 Phil. 787, 801-802 (2002); Zabat v. Court of Appeals, 393 Phil. 195, 206 (2000).