G.R. No. L-22010. February 27, 1965.
FAUSTO PANGILINAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. RICE AND CORN ADMINISTRATION, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Fausto Pangilinan was appointed as a warehouseman of the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) effective July 2, 1957. On December 9, 1958, he was administratively charged for a cash and accountability shortage and suspended. In Resolution No. 30 dated March 2, 1962, the NARIC Board of Directors found him guilty of dishonesty for shortages amounting to P38,545.15 and ordered his dismissal effective the date of his preventive suspension, directing the Legal Department to file civil or criminal actions. Pursuant to Republic Act 3452, NARIC was abolished, and its assets, liabilities, and personnel were transferred to the Rice and Corn Administration (RCA) effective June 14, 1962. On November 7, 1962, RCA furnished Pangilinan a copy of Resolution No. 30. Pangilinan filed a motion for reconsideration with the RCA Board of Administrators on November 12, 1962, alleging the resolution was null and void for lack of factual or legal basis. RCA denied the motion per Resolution No. 58 dated December 6, 1962, stating that a hearing was conducted in accordance with due process. On February 5, 1963, Pangilinan filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, alleging that RCA acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion because Resolution No. 30 had no legal basis as no hearing was conducted. RCA filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court initially denied the motion but later reconsidered and dismissed the petition. Pangilinan appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising a pure question of law.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed Pangilinan’s petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. Pangilinan failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before resorting to judicial action. Under Section 5 of Republic Act 3452, the RCA General Manager and Board of Administrators’ power to discipline employees is “subject to the Civil Service Law.” Republic Act 2260 (Civil Service Act of 1959) grants the Civil Service Commissioner final authority to pass upon removals, suspensions, and disciplinary matters, and to hear appeals from aggrieved parties. After RCA denied Pangilinan’s motion for reconsideration, he still had the administrative remedy of appealing to the Civil Service Commissioner. Pangilinan’s contention that no hearing was conducted, alleging patent illegality, did not excuse exhaustion of remedies. The resolutions indicated an investigation and hearing occurred, and no patent illegality was evident from the petition’s annexes. Therefore, Pangilinan should have first appealed to the Civil Service Commissioner. The order of dismissal was affirmed, with costs.