6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00). x x x [33] An Act Expanding The Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending For The Purpose Batas Pambansa Big. 129, Otherwise Known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980." [34] Geronimo v. Calderon, G.R. No. 201781, December 10,2014. [35] Zabat v. Court of Appeals, 393 Phil. 195, 205 (2000). [36] Id. [37] In First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 311 Phil. 280 (1996), the Court held that the filing by a party of two apparently different actions, but with the same objective, constituted forum-shopping. [38] In Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 194024, April 25,2012, 671 SCRA 461, 480-481, the Court enumerated the exceptions to the principle of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies as follows: "(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (1) in quo warranto proceedings." [39] Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Carantes, 635 Phil. 541, 548 (2010). Source: Supreme Court E-Library This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS) elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61203 9/9