You are on page 1of 5

GUALBERTO CASTRO vs.

HONORABLE SECRETARY RICARDO GLORIA


[G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001]

FACTS:
Porfirio Gutang, Jr. filed with the DECS a complaint for disgraceful and immoral
conduct against petitioner Gualberto Castro, a teacher in Guibuangan Central School, Barili,
Cebu. It was alleged that he has an illicit affair with Gutang's wife, petitioner's co-teacher at the
same school. After hearing the DECS Regional Office through Assistant Superintendent Concillo
rendered a decision declaring petitioner guilty of the offense charged. He was meted the penalty
of dismissal from the service. The DECS Central Office affirmed Concillo's decision in an
Indorsement. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Instead of resolving the
motion, DECS Central Office directed the School Division of Cebu to comment on the motion
where the latter recommended that the motion be resolved favorably. However, their
commendation was opposed by the DECS Region VII.
Thereafter, in his letters petitioner asked the incumbent DECS Secretary to resolve his
motion for reconsideration. But his letters remained unheeded, thus petitioner filed with the
DECS Central Office a "Motion for Review Setting Aside/Modifying the Decision of Regional
Director of DECS Region VII " where DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria (respondent) referred the
motion to the RD of Region VII for comment. Later, Regional Director Eladio C. Dioko issued a
2nd Indorsement sustaining the decision of Assistant Superintendent Concillo. In his
3rdIndorsement, respondent Secretary denied petitioner' s motion for review. Thrice thwarted,
petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC where the trial court rendered a decision
dismissing the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. It ruled that
petitioner should have appealed to the CSC before coming to court.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies

HELD:
No, this falls to the exception of the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate
administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before
the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. It is settled that non-observance of
the doctrine results in lack of a cause of action, which is one of the grounds allowed by the Rules
of Court for the dismissal of the complaint. The doctrine is not absolute. There are instances
when it may be dispensed with and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately.
Among these exceptions are: 1) When the question raised is purely legal; 2) when the
administrative body is in
estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; 4) when there is urgent need for
judicial intervention; 5) when the claim involved is small; 6) when irreparable damage will be
suffered; 7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8) when strong public
interest is involved; and 9)in quo warranto proceedings.
Truly, a petition for mandamus is premature if there are administrative remedies available
to petitioner. But where the case involves only legal questions, the litigant need not exhaust all
administrative remedies before such judicial relief can be sought.
ANG TIBAY vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR
UNION, INC.
[G.R. No. L-46496 February 27, 1940]

FACTS:
Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather company which supplies the
Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the layoff of a number of his
employees. However, the National Labor Union, Inc. (NLU) questioned the validity of said lay
off as it averred that the said employees laid off were members of NLU while no members of the
rival labor union National Workers Brotherhood (NWB) were laid off. NLU claims that NWB is
a company dominated union and Toribio was merely busting NLU.
The case reached the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) where Toribio and NWB won.
Eventually, NLU went to the Supreme Court invoking its right for a new trial on the ground of
newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with NLU. The Solicitor General,
arguing for the CIR, filed a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not the National Labor Union, Inc. is entitled to a new trial.

HELD:
Yes. The records show that the newly discovered evidence or documents obtained by
NLU, which they attached to their petition with the SC, were evidence so inaccessible to them at
the time of the trial that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to
have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations. Further, the
attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching importance and effect that their
admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered (said
newly obtained records include books of business/inventory accounts by Ang Tibay which were
not previously accessible but already existing).
The SC also outlined that administrative bodies, like the CIR, although not strictly bound by
the Rules of Court must also make sure that they comply to the requirements of due process. For
administrative bodies, due process can be complied with by observing the following:
 The right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or affected to
present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof.
 Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce
evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider
the evidence presented.
 While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply
a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its
decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when
directly attached.
 Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the evidence
must be “substantial.” Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
 The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
 The administrative body or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept
the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
 The administrative body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such
a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the
reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the
authority conferred upon it