G.R. No. 190566 ; December 11, 2013
MARK JEROME S. MAGLALANG, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Mark Jerome S. Maglalang, a teller at Casino Filipino Angeles City, was administratively charged with Discourtesy towards a customer following an incident on December 13, 2008. He allegedly made an error in counting a customer’s cash, resulting in a short declaration of P10,000, which he promptly rectified. The customer, however, accused him of attempting to shortchange her. After an investigation, PAGCOR’s Board of Directors found him guilty and imposed a 30-day suspension. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
Believing the penalty to be unjust and the proceedings flawed, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Court of Appeals (CA), bypassing the Civil Service Commission (CSC). He argued that the 30-day suspension was not appealable to the CSC under the rules, as only penalties exceeding 30 days fall under the CSC’s appellate jurisdiction. The CA dismissed his petition outright for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, holding that the CSC has jurisdiction over PAGCOR personnel disputes.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, specifically, for failure to appeal first to the Civil Service Commission.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the CA and ruled that the petitioner correctly filed his petition for certiorari directly with the CA. The legal logic hinges on the scope of the Civil Service Commission’s appellate jurisdiction. Under Section 47 of the Administrative Code, the CSC decides on appeal cases involving penalties of suspension for more than thirty days, demotion, transfer, removal, or dismissal. The penalty imposed on Maglalang was a 30-day suspension, which is precisely the maximum period that is not appealable to the CSC. Therefore, no appeal to the CSC was available or required. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies dictates that recourse must first be made to the agency possessing appellate authority. When no such appellate remedy exists, as in this case where the penalty fell outside the CSC’s appellate jurisdiction, the doctrine does not apply. Consequently, Maglalang’s direct resort to judicial review via a Rule 65 petition before the CA to allege grave abuse of discretion was proper and not premature. The CA thus committed reversible error in dismissing the petition on procedural grounds.