Judicial Review of Administrative: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Alzate v. Aldana (G.R. L-14407)

REYES, J.

CASE SUMMARY
AGOO, LA UNION - Petitioner (Alzate) is a Principal of the South Provincial High School in their province. He
has been in the service of the Bureau of Public schools for already 24-years and believes that this entitles him
to the salary adjustment (1 rate for every 5 years of service) pursuant to Section 4, paragraphs (a) and (b) of
Republic Act No. 842: Public School Salary Act of 1953. Thus petitioner wrote to the respondent Director of
Public Schools (Aldana). However, the director disagreed and denied Alzate’s request. Petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration explaining that an opinion of the Secretary of Justice entitled him to such. This MR was not
ruled upon by the respondents, and fearing that the funds supposedly appropriated for such salary adjustment
would revert back to the government budget when the fiscal year expires, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus
with the Court of First Instance which was subsequently denied by the CFI upon petition to dismiss by the
respondents on the ground of lack of cause of action and of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Alzate
also prayed for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, but desisted because of the assurance made in open
court that Aldana will report to the proper officials regarding the salary issue no later than June 30. However,
upon motion by the respondents, the CFI dismissed Alzate’s petition. The Supreme Court reversed the said CFI
decision, ratiocinating that in the case at bar, the parties had to agree and the court had to approve the agreement
that the Director of Public Schools shall recommend to the proper officials not later than June 30. This, they
ruled, is a recognition by the parties as well as the court of the urgency of the action taken by the petitioner.
Under the circumstances, petitioner should be deemed to have sufficient cause of action at the time he filed his
petition.

DOCTRINE
The exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remedies are the following:
1. When there is a violation of due process
2. When the issue involved is purely a legal question
3. When the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
4. When there is estoppel on the part of the admin agency concerned
5. When there is irreparable injury
6. When the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the
implied and assumed approval of the latter
7. When to require exhaustion of admin remedies would be unreasonable
8. When it would amount to a nullification of a claim
9. When the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings
10. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy
11. When there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention
12. When no administrative review is provided by law
13. When the rule of qualified political agency applies
14. When the issue of non-exhaustion of admin remedies has been rendered moot.
This case falls under either of the two underlined exceptions.

FACTS
1. Anacleto Alzate is the Principal of the South Provincial High School in Agoo, La Union Province.
2. Benigno Aldana is the Director of Public Schools and Zacarias G. de Vera is the Superintendent of
Schools.
3. December 20, 1957 - Petitioner Alzate wrote to respondent Aldana claiming that taking into account his
24-years of service in the Bureau of Public Schools in various capacities, the last one as secondary
principal, petitioner was entitled under Section 4, paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of Republic Act No.
842 to the following:
a. an automatic salary increase of 4 rates (1 rate for every 5 years) after his salary has been adjusted
to the minimum
b. an additional automatic salary increase of 1 rate for having passed the examination for
Superintendent of Private Schools given by the Civil Service Commission.
 4. The Director of Public Schools denied his request, ratiocinating that only the actual number of years of
service as secondary principal would be considered (which is around 9 years, 8 months, 15 days)
moreover, he is only entitled to one rate of salary increase because the examination taken and passed
by petitioner was only for the Bureau of Private Schools, thus petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of
paragraph (b) of the Public School Salary Act.
5. May 17, 1958 - Petitioner Alzate requested for reconsideration, citing an opinion of the Secretary of
Justice (Op. No. 144, S-1956) that in the adjustment of salaries that in the adjustment of salaries under
Republic Act No. 842, the length of service in the educational branch of the government and not
merely that in the position occupied at the time of the adjustment, should be considered.
6. May 23, 1958 - petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was received by the Bureau of Public Schools
7. May 30, 1958 - a memorandum was submitted to Dr. Aldana, Dr. Bernardino and Dr. Guiang all of the
same bureau.
8. Petitioner, not having received any ruling on his MR, and fearing that the amount appropriated for the
payment of the salary adjustment, if not disbursed or committed, will be reverted to the general funds of
the government when the fiscal year expires, filed a mandamus proceeding in the Court of First Instance
of La Union.
9. June 27, 1958 - after due hearing on the petition for a writ of preliminary and mandatory injunction, the
CFI made the observation that it has been agreed upon in open court that the Director of Public
Schools shall recommend to the proper officials not later than June 30, 1958 and before the close
of office hours on that date regarding the said salary adjustment issue.
10. By reason of such assurance, petitioner Alzate desisted in pressing for the resolution on his prayer for
the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
11. Respondents filed their motion to dismiss on the following grounds:
a. that the petition stated no cause of action
b. that the petitioner had not exhausted all administrative remedies before coming to court; and
c. that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE AND RULING

Whether or not the petition filed by Alzate on June 11, 1958 while the Director of Public Schools was still
considering petitioner’s request for reconsideration stated no cause of action in view of the non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies. - NO, petition had a cause of action, notwithstanding the non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies as the circumstances fall under the exceptions.
 It appears from the petition that the reason for filing without awaiting the final action of the Director of
Public Schools was the urgency of preventing the automatic reversion as of July 1, 1958 (expiration of
the fiscal year)
 If petitioner waited for the final decision of his MR, which in fact did not come before June 30, whatever
action Aldana would have done, even if favorable to Alzate, would have been for naught because of the
reversion of the funds.
 Petitioner claims that to require him to exhaust the administrative remedies, in the circumstances of the
case, would amount to a nullification of his claim
 The fact that the parties had to agree in open court that the Aldana shall recommend to the proper officials
not later than June 30, is a recognition by the parties as well as the court of the validity and urgency
of the action taken by Alzate - which means that that petitioner had sufficient cause of action at the
time of filing of his petition on June 11, 1958

DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and the case REMANDED to the court of
origin for further proceedings. Without costs. SO ORDERED.

Digester: Kim