Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    Castro V Secretary, GR No. 132174, Aug 20, 2001

    Uploaded by

    Lyle Bucol
    This case involved a petition for mandamus filed by Petitioner Castro against the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) regarding a complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct filed against Castro. The regional trial court dismissed the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute and can be dispensed with if the question raised is purely legal. In this case, Castro no longer disputed the administrative finding of guilt but only challenged the penalty imposed, which was a question of law as it involved determining the proper penalty under applicable laws and rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Castro V Secretary, GR No. 132174, Aug 20, 2001

    Uploaded by

    Lyle Bucol
    140 views1 page
    This case involved a petition for mandamus filed by Petitioner Castro against the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) regarding a complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct filed against Castro. The regional trial court dismissed the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute and can be dispensed with if the question raised is purely legal. In this case, Castro no longer disputed the administrative finding of guilt but only challenged the penalty imposed, which was a question of law as it involved determining the proper penalty under applicable laws and rules.

    Original Title

    19. Castro v Secretary, GR No. 132174, Aug 20, 2001

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a petition for mandamus filed by Petitioner Castro against the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) regarding a complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct filed against Castro. The regional trial court dismissed the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute and can be dispensed with if the question raised is purely legal. In this case, Castro no longer disputed the administrative finding of guilt but only challenged the penalty imposed, which was a question of law as it involved determining the proper penalty under applicable laws and rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    140 views1 page

    Castro V Secretary, GR No. 132174, Aug 20, 2001

    Uploaded by

    Lyle Bucol
    This case involved a petition for mandamus filed by Petitioner Castro against the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) regarding a complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct filed against Castro. The regional trial court dismissed the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute and can be dispensed with if the question raised is purely legal. In this case, Castro no longer disputed the administrative finding of guilt but only challenged the penalty imposed, which was a question of law as it involved determining the proper penalty under applicable laws and rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Castro v Secretary, GR No.

    132174, Aug 20, 2001

    Facts: Porfirio Gutang, Jr. filed with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) a complaint
    for disgraceful and immoral conduct against petitioner Gualberto Castro. Petitioner filed a motion for
    reconsideration. DECS Central Office directed the School Division of Cebu to comment on the motion.
    The School Division Superintendent recommended that the motion be resolved favorably. However, the
    recommendation was opposed by the DECS. Petitioner asked the incumbent DECS Secretary to resolve
    his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court.
    The trial court rendered the herein assailed decision dismissing the petition on the ground of non-
    exhaustion of administrative remedies.

    Issue: Whether or not the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies when the latter failed tp
    appeal the decision of respondent to the Civil Service Commission.

    Ruling: NO. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate
    administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the
    same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. It is settled that non-observance of the
    doctrine results in lack of a cause of action, which is one of the grounds allowed by the Rules of Court for
    the dismissal of the complaint.

    The doctrine is not absolute. There are instances when it may be dispensed with and judicial action may
    be validly resorted to immediately. Among these exceptions are: 1) When the question raised is purely
    legal; 2) when the administrative body is in estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; 4)
    when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; 5) when the claim involved is small; 6) when
    irreparable damage will be suffered; 7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8)
    when strong public interest is involved; and 10) in quo warranto proceedings.

    A petition for mandamus is premature if there are administrative remedies available to petitioner. But
    where the case involves only legal questions, the litigant need not exhaust all administrative remedies
    before such judicial relief can be sought.

    It is settled that for a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the
    probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. And the distinction is well
    known. There is a question of law when the doubt or differences arise as to what the law is on a certain
    state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or differences arise as to the truth or the
    falsehood of alleged facts.

    In the case at bench, petitioner no longer disputes the administrative finding of his guilt for the offense
    of disgraceful and immoral conduct. It is settled and final insofar as he is concerned. What petitioner
    only impugns is the correctness of the penalty of "dismissal from the service." He is convinced that the
    proper penalty for the first offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is only suspension from the
    service. Undoubtedly, the issue here is a pure question of law. We need only to look at the applicable
    law or rule and we will be able to determine whether the penalty of dismissal is in order.

    You might also like