Alzate, etc v. Aldana, etc., et al. (1960) Barrera, J.
mandamus proceeding, fearing that the amount
Plaintiff: Anacleto Alzate
Respondent: Benigno Aldana and Zacarias de Vera
Concept: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Brief facts: Alzate wrote to the Director of Public
Schools, asking for an increase in his salary pursuant to
RA 842, which the latter denied. He filed a motion for
reconsideration. Without awaiting for the directors
final resolution, he filed a petition for mandamus in the
CFI. Director of Public Schools filed a Motion to Dismiss,
claiming that Alzate filed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. Court a quo granted the Motion to Dismiss,
but the SC reversed.
Doctrine: If he waited for the final decision on his
petition for reconsideration which did not come before
June 30, 1958, whatever action taken by respondent,
even if favorable to him, would be of no avail after the
reversion of the funds appropriate for the salary
adjustment. To require him to exhaust all the
administrative remedies would amount to a was still considering his request when he filed his
nullification of his claim.
FACTS:
1. Anacleto Alzate is the Principal of the South
Provincial High School in Agoo, La Union. He wrote
to the Director of Public Schools, 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, he was entitled to
an automatic salary increase under paragraphs (a)
and (b) of RA 842 .
o Under par (a): increase of 4 rates (1 rate
for every 5 years of service).
o Under par (b): additional increase of 1 rate
for passing the examination of
Superintendent of Private School given by
the Civil Service Commission.
2. The Director of Public Schools denied his request
on the following grounds:
o In the adjustment of salary of secondary
principals, only the actual number of years
of service as such secondary principal
would be considered. Alzate only served as
such for 9 years, 8 months, and 15 days,
hence, he is only entitled to one rate of
salary increase.
o The examination he passed was for the
Bureau of Private Schools, hence, he isnt
entitled to the benefit of par (b) of the
Public School Salary Act.
3. Alzate requested for a reconsideration, citing an
opinion of the Secretary of Justice who held that in
the adjustment of salaries under RA 842, the
length of service in the educational branch of the
government and not merely the position occupied
at the time of the adjustment should be
considered.
4. The letter of reconsideration was received on May
30, 1958.
5. On June 11, 1958, Alzate not having received any
ruling on his request for reconsideration filed a
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |1
given for the payment of the salary adjustment of
public school teacher and officials, if not disbursed
before the expiration of the fiscal on June 30,
1958, would be reverted to the general funds of
the Government.
6. After due hearing on the petition for a writ of
preliminary preventive and mandatory injunction,
the CFI made the following observation: Director of
Public Schools shall recommend to the proper
officials not later than June 30, 1958, to pay
Alzate the amount of P840.
7. Director of Public Schools and the Division
Superintendent of Schools for La Union filed a
motion to dismiss on the grounds that petition
stated no cause of action against respondents, that
Alzate has not exhausted all administrative
remedies, and that the lower court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case.
8. The court a quo gave credence to the argument of
respondents, since the Director of Public Schools
petition, and dismissed his petition without
prejudice to his right to file an appropriate action.
ISSUE: WON Alzates petition stated no cause of action
in view of the non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies (NO)
RATIO:
Alzate was justified in filing his petition despite
his failure to exhaust the administrative
remedies.
- The reason for filing without awaiting the final
action of the Director of Public Schools was the
urgency of preventing the automatic reversion of
the sum appropriated for the adjustment of the
salary of public school teachers.
- Alzate contends that if he waited for the final
decision on his petition for reconsideration which
did not come before June 30, 1958, whatever
action taken by respondent, even if favorable to
him, would be of no avail after the reversion of the
funds appropriate for the salary adjustment. To
require him to exhaust all the administrative
remedies would amount to a nullification of his
claim.
- Court agress with petitioner. The fact that 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, 1958 and before closing hours, is a
recognition of the validity and urgency of the
action taken by petitioner.
- Petitioner had sufficient cause of action at the time
of the filing of his petition, and a resort to the court
without awaiting for the final decision of the
administrative officers is not premature.
DISPOSITIVE: Case remanded to the court of origin.
Cipriano v. Marcelino (1972) Castro, J.
Plaintiff: Leticia Cipriano
Respondent: Gregorio Marcelino and the Honorable
Rafael dela Cruz
Concept: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Brief Facts:
Doctrine:
FACTS:
1. Leticia Cipriano served as record clerk in the office
of the Municipal Treasurer, Gregorio Marcelino from
January 1, 1963 to January 15, 1966 with a monthly
salary of P80.
2. She resigned in January 15, 1966. However,
Marcelino refused to pay her salary corresponding
to the period from September 1, 1965 to the date
of her resignation, amounting to P349 as well as
her accumulated vacation and sick leaves worth
P600.
3. Cipriano filed an action for Mandamus to compel
Marcelino to pay her a total of P949 and also asked
for moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees,
and costs of suit.
4. Marcelino moved to dismiss this upon the ground
that she had not exhausted all administrative
remedies before filing the action.
5. Court a quo granted the motion and dismissed the
case. Ciprianos motion for reconsideration was
denied.
6. Cipriano contends that:
o There is no law that requires an appeal to
the Provincial Treasurer, Secretary of
Finance, Auditor General, and then to the
President of the Philippines from the
refusal by a municipal treasurer to pay the
salary of a municipal employee.
o Assuming that an appeal all the way to the
President is required, such isnt a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy.
o Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies isnt applicable when the
questions involve pure questions of law
o The payment of her claim is purely a
ministerial duty and mandamus is the
proper remedy
o To require a small government employee
to appeal all the way to the President on
such an inconsequential amount would be
oppressive and expensive
7. Marcelino insists on the other hand:
o Mandamus states no cause of action for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies
o Cipriano hasnt acquired any right to be
paid her salary and accumulated sick and
vacation leave pay for failure to comply
with the requirements prescribed by the
1966 Manual on Pre-audit of Government
Disbursements
Letter of Resignation duly accepted
Certificate of Clearance from
Money and Property Accountability
Certificate of Clearance from the
GSIS
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |2
o She still has outstanding accountability for
missing triplicate copies of 3 official
receipts which were in her custody.
8. Cipriano avers that she has complied with the
following requirements. The investigation
conducted by Marcelino led to the finding that
other persons were accountable for the triplicate
copies. Finally, she need not present a certificate of
clearance from GSIS because she is not a member
thereof.
ISSUE: WON Ciprianos petition should be dismissed
for failing to exhaust all administrative remedies (NO)
RATIO:
Cipriano need not exhaust all the administrative
remedies.
- The principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not without exception, nor is it a
condition precedent to administrative relief. The
principle may be disregarded when it doesnt
provide a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. It
may and should be relaxed when its application
may cause a great and irreparable damage.
- To require Cipriano to go all the way to the
President on appeal in the matter of collection of
P949 would not only be oppressive but patently
unreasonable.
- By the time her appeal shall have been decided,
the amount of much more than P949 would have
been spent.
- In De Leon v Libay, the court made this statement
which is appropriate in the case at bar:
"The theory that a party must first exhaust his
remedies in the administrative branch before
seeking the aid of the strong arm of equity
must give way to the reality that a government
employee must depend for the support of
himself and his family upon his salary, and
were he to be deprived of that even alone for a
few months, possibly even lees, that must
mean starvation because more often than not,
a government employee lives hand-to-mouth
existence and he awaits with eager hands the
arrival of the forthnightly envelope because
upon it must hinge the supply of rice and fish
and clothing of his spouse and children and
himself and with it only can be maintained, and
therefore were the dogmatic rule of exhaustion
of administrative remedies be made to mean
that he should wait for the most final
administrative decision in his case, the only
logical result must be vital disaster to his
dependents and to himself, so that this is the
reason why the rule of exhaustion of
administrative remedies has always been
understood to mean that the same have
furnished a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy."
- All the documents required to support payment of
Ciprianos salary and cash commutation of her
unused vacation and sick leaves have been
accomplished.
- She has earned the right to said payment, and it is DISPOSITIVE: Petition granted.
the duty of Marcelino to recognize such right and
effect the payment.

TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |3