Decision 22 G.R. No. 215988 environmental compliance certificate or conduct an environmental impact assessment before felling the trees. 106 Upon careful review, this Court finds that this case falls under the exceptions in Medina, particularly: "( 4) [w ]hen the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts"; 107 and "(8) [w]hen the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based [. ]" 108 III Petitioners assert that since they were never made parties to the application for the amended Environmental Compliance Ce1iificate, they are not bound by the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Both private 109 and public respondents 110 claim otherwise. Respondents are mistaken. The general rule is to first exhaust the available administrative remedies before a party can bring the case to a court for judicial review. 111 In connection with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under this doctrine, courts will hold off from determining a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative agency, particularly when its resolution demands the "special knowledge, experience[,] and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact." 112 However, Pagara v. Court of Appeals' 13 emphasized that the rule r" exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It may be disregarded when any of the following exceptions are present: It is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, or (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or (4) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention .... 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Id. at 3228-3230. Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 232 (1990) [Per J. Bidinm Third Division]. Id. Rollo, pp. 677-678, SM Prime Holding's Comment. Id. at 2725-2728, Public respondent's Comment Republic v. Lacap, 546 Phil. 87, 96-97 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division]. Id. at 97. 325 Phil. 66 (1996) [Per J. Vitug, First Division]. /