G.R. No. 132174 ; August 20, 2001
GUALBERTO CASTRO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY RICARDO GLORIA IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondent.

FACTS

Porfirio Gutang, Jr. filed a complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct with the DECS against petitioner Gualberto Castro, a teacher, alleging an illicit affair with Gutang’s wife, a co-teacher. After a hearing, the DECS Regional Office VII, through Assistant Superintendent Francisco B. Concillo, rendered a decision on August 28, 1984, finding petitioner guilty and meting the penalty of dismissal. The DECS Central Office affirmed this decision on March 25, 1986. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on July 21, 1986. The DECS Central Office did not resolve it but sought comments. The School Division Superintendent recommended a favorable resolution, but DECS Region VII opposed it. Petitioner sent follow-up letters on November 5, 1988, and July 19, 1990, to no avail. On October 4, 1995, petitioner filed a “Motion for Review” with the DECS Central Office. Respondent Secretary Ricardo Gloria referred it to the Regional Director, who sustained the finding of guilt but suggested the Secretary review the penalty. In a 3rd Indorsement dated March 6, 1996, respondent Secretary denied the motion for review. Petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court, seeking to reduce his penalty from dismissal to one-year suspension, consider it served, reinstate him, and pay back salaries. The trial court dismissed the petition on November 20, 1997, on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, ruling he should have appealed to the Civil Service Commission first. His motion for reconsideration was denied on January 5, 1998.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s direct resort to judicial action via a petition for mandamus was proper despite the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute. One of its exceptions is when the question raised is purely legal. Here, petitioner no longer disputed the administrative finding of guilt for disgraceful and immoral conduct. The sole issue impugned was the correctness of the penalty of dismissal, contending the proper penalty for a first offense was only suspension. This is a pure question of law, as it involves determining what the law prescribes for a given set of facts, not examining the evidence or truth of the allegations. Therefore, petitioner was not required to appeal to the Civil Service Commission before seeking judicial relief. On the merits, the Court reduced the penalty from dismissal to one-year suspension without pay. Considering the length of time petitioner had been out of service (since 1984), the penalty was deemed fully served. The Court ordered his immediate reinstatement. The Regional Trial Court’s Decision and Order were set aside.