Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

ALZATE VS ALDANA

Feb 29, 1960 | J. Barrera | Rai

P - Anacleto Alzate, in his official capacity as Principal of the South Provincial High School, Agoo,
La Union
R - Benigno Aldana, in his official capacity as Director of Public Schools and
Zacarias G. De Vera, in his official capacity as Division Superintendent of Schools for La Union

Dec 20, 1957 - Alzate wrote to Aldana (Director of Public Schools) claiming that under RA 842
a. he was entitled to an automatic salary increase of 4 rates (1 rate for every 5 years of service)
after his salary has been adjusted to the minimum since he has been with the Bureau of Public
Schools in various capacities for 24 years
b. he was entitled to an additional automatic salary increase of 1 rate since he passed the
examination for Superintendent of Private Schools given by the CSC

Mar 10, 1958 - in the 2nd indorsement of the Dir. of Public Schools to the Division Superintendent
of Schools for La Union (De Vera), he DENIED Alzates request
- contended that when adjusting the salary of secondary principals, only the actual number of
years of service as such secondary principal would be considered
- hes only been in that capacity for 9 years, 8 months and 15 days so he would be entitled to only
1 rate of salary increase
- also, since the examination taken and passed by Alzate was only for the Bureau of Public
Schools, he wouldnt be entitled to the benefit that he cited in his letter

April 14, 1958 - P Alzate received the indorsement of denial

May 17, 1958 - P requested for reconsideration of the ruling


- cited an opinion of the Sec of Justice that in the adjustment of salaries under RA 842, the length
of service in the educational branch of the govt and not merely in the position occupied at the
time of adjustment, should be considered

May 23, 1958 - the letter for reconsideration was received by the Bureau of Public Schoools

May 30, 1958 - said letter was processed by a certain Mr. Samson of the Bureau of Public Schools
and a memorandum about it was submitted to Dr. Aldana, Dr. Bernardino and Dr. Guiang of the
same bureau

June 11, 1958 - P filed a mandamus proceeding with the CFI of La Union
- since P had not received any ruling on his request and because he was afraid that the amount
appropriated for the payment of public school teachers and officials (if not disbursed or
committed before the expiration of the fiscal year) would be reverted to the general funds of the
Government,
June 27, 1958 - after due hearing on the petition for writ of preliminary injunction, the court gave an
order where they observed that:
- it has been agreed that the Dir. of Public Schools shall recommend to the proper officials that the
sum of P840 claimed by petitioner be given to him and other sums that the director believes is
necessary for all other school officials/teachers benefited by the decision secured by the
petitioner.

Respondents filed their MtD on the grounds that


- the petition stated no cause of action against R
- P had no exhausted all administrative remedies before coming to court
- the lower court had acquired no JD over the case

July 31, 1958 - petition was dismissed without prejudice to the right of P to file an appropriate
action at the opportune time
- present action taken was premature because all administrative remedies have not been
exhausted yet

W/N the petition filed on June 11, 1958, while the Director of Public Schools was still considering
Ps request for reconsideration, stated no cause of action in view of the non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies. - NO

P ARG: He filed the petition without waiting for final action from the R because of the urgency of
preventing automatic reversion since after the expiration of the then current fiscal year, the sum
appropriated for salary adjustment of public school officials would revert to the Government. P
contends that if he waited for the final decision, whatever action that the R would take, even if
favorable to P, would be to no avail after the reversion of funds. He claims that to require him to
exhaust the administrative remedies would, in effect, amount to a nullification of his claim.

SC: There is merit in Ps contention.


- fact that parties had to agree and the court had to approve the agreement that the Dir. of Public
Schools shall recommend to the proper officers and before the closing of hours on June 30,
1958 the commitment of P840 is a recognition by the parties and the court of the urgency and
validity of the action taken by P
- it would seem that in the circumstances of instant case, P had sufficient cause of action at the
time of the filing of his petition and a resort to the court without waiting for the final decision of
the administrative officers was not premature

RULING: Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside and the case remanded to the
court of origin for further proceedings. Without costs.

Оценить