G.R. No. L-41088 October 30, 1981
Artemio B. Pacana, petitioner, vs. The Honorable David M. Consunji, in his capacity as Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, and The Honorable Postmaster General, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Artemio B. Pacana, Acting Postmaster of Cagayan de Oro City, was dismissed from the service on March 11, 1974, by respondent Secretary David M. Consunji. The dismissal stemmed from administrative charges, primarily a finding of guilt for a shortage in funds amounting to P58,681.72. Petitioner had been subjected to multiple audit examinations. While he was previously cleared of a separate dishonesty charge for using a mail car personally, he was found liable for the financial shortage after a formal hearing.
Following his dismissal, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the Office of the Secretary, which was denied. Subsequently, he pursued an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. While this administrative appeal was still pending consideration, petitioner initiated the present special civil action for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court, seeking reinstatement. He alleged, among other things, a denial of procedural due process during the investigation.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus is premature and should be dismissed due to the petitioner’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court ruled that the petition was procedurally infirm and premature. The controlling precedent is Antonio v. Tanco, Jr., which holds that the availability of an adequate administrative remedy precludes immediate judicial intervention. Petitioner himself admitted that his appeal was still pending before the Civil Service Commission. By availing himself of this administrative appeal, he is required to exhaust that remedy before resorting to the courts. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is fundamental; it allows the executive branch, which has primary competence over such matters, the opportunity to correct any error. Judicial power may only be appropriately exercised once the administrative process has been completed and the issue is ripe for adjudication.
Petitioner’s attempt to invoke a due process violation to bypass this requirement, citing Reyes v. Subido, is unavailing. The Reyes exception applies when no appeal is taken, allowing direct recourse to the courts. Here, petitioner did take an appeal, making the Antonio doctrine squarely applicable. Furthermore, the Court noted that the records indicated petitioner was afforded a formal hearing and an opportunity to present his case in his motion for reconsideration, where he failed to submit new evidence to warrant a reversal. Therefore, with his administrative appeal still pending, the judicial remedy sought is not yet available, and the petition must be dismissed.