Sanoy v. Tantuico
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, employees of the City of Cebu appointed between January and October 1964, were summarily dismissed from their positions by the Acting City Mayor, Eulogio E. Borres, between January 1 and 5, 1968. These employees were not civil service eligibles but were members of the Government Service Insurance System. The Mayor subsequently appointed non-eligibles to the positions rendered vacant by the dismissals. 2. Procedural History: Following their dismissal, the petitioners protested their removal to the Commissioner of Civil Service in February 1968. The Commissioner referred these protests to the Mayor for comment, but no action was taken by the Mayor. In April 1968, the petitioners requested the City Auditor and City Treasurer to withhold salaries of those appointed in their stead. On October 2, 1968, with no definitive action from the Commissioner of Civil Service, the petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI, seeking reinstatement with back salaries, damages, and attorney's fees. The respondent judge dismissed the petition on August 13, 1969, on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. 3. The Petition: The petitioners-appellants are before the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal of their petition for mandamus by the respondent judge. They contend that the judge erred in dismissing their case on the grounds of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, arguing that they had substantially complied with the requirement by filing protests with the Commissioner of Civil Service. They further argue that the Commissioner's inaction, due to the Mayor's failure to comment, and the impending expiration of the one-year period for judicial action, necessitated their resort to court. The appeal seeks to set aside the dismissal order and remand the case for trial on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge correctly dismissed the petitioners' action for mandamus on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Ruling
The Court held that the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The order of dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded to the court a quo for trial and judgment on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had substantially complied with the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. They had filed formal protests with the Commissioner of Civil Service regarding their dismissal by the respondent City Mayor. The Court noted that the Commissioner's failure to resolve these protests was attributable to the respondent Mayor's non-compliance with the Commissioner's request for comment. Crucially, the Court considered the time constraint, stating that the period of one year from the date of removal within which a judicial action of this nature should be commenced was fast approaching. Therefore, resorting to court action via a petition for mandamus was deemed appropriate and timely. The Court cited the case of Gonzales, et al., vs. ACCFA (18 SCRA 183) to support its stance, wherein it was held that writing to the Commissioner and Secretary of Education and failing to obtain relief, coupled with threats of replacement, constituted practical exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court found it unnecessary to discuss other issues at this stage, as some were factual and controverted, and thus the prayer for immediate reinstatement could not be granted, but the alternative relief of remanding the case for trial was in order.
Main Doctrine
The rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies is substantially complied with when a party files formal protests with the Commissioner of Civil Service, and the Commissioner's failure to resolve the protests is due to the non-compliance of the respondent Mayor with the Commissioner's request for comment, especially when the period for judicial action is running out.